tobiwalker
Joined Jun 2018
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews40
tobiwalker's rating
I am a Ray Harryhausen fan and have devoured movies with creature animation from Willis O'Brien's stop-motion in the 1925 "The Lost World" to the glorious CGI of today's Jurassic Park franchise. I am also a woman. This movie, despite it's budgetary shortcomings, did almost everything exactly right.
Many people find female leads in action movies to be distressing. They prefer the damsel-in-distress on the sidelines (although Sigourney Weaver in Alien seems to be an exception?) I like seeing a monster movie or a Marvel movie with a female lead -- it's nice to see people like me making competent decisions and doing more than cower behind men.
Despite Amelia Earhart's achievements, it took the men-in-charge a long time to realize women could be taught to fly airplanes (and do lot of other things) whilst men were off to war.) The women of WW2's WASPs, though they weren't officially part of the military at the time, flew over 60 million miles in every type of aircraft the Army had. The scriptwriter worked all sorts of accurate details into their story that I only noticed afterwards, when I learned more about WASP history.
A low budget is a given considering the market for which the film was produced. Making good use of what budget one's given through a clever premise and good writing, sharing a bit of history worth remembering as well as referencing the classic 1950s atomic threat trope, ariel dogfights with dinosaurs -- it all adds up to a film that is appealing to me. Most appealing are the women in the crew: their reasonably accurate clothing and make-up, their camaraderie, their courage. I liked that there weren't long, lingering shots of victims' spouting blood. I'm there for the dinosaurs, not the damage they do to their victims.
There are viewers out there who find any film with female leads to be a waste of time. I'm glad the producers of this one felt differently. If I'd seen this film as a little girl, I'd have wanted to be a pilot when I grew up so I could fight the dinosaurs, too.
Many people find female leads in action movies to be distressing. They prefer the damsel-in-distress on the sidelines (although Sigourney Weaver in Alien seems to be an exception?) I like seeing a monster movie or a Marvel movie with a female lead -- it's nice to see people like me making competent decisions and doing more than cower behind men.
Despite Amelia Earhart's achievements, it took the men-in-charge a long time to realize women could be taught to fly airplanes (and do lot of other things) whilst men were off to war.) The women of WW2's WASPs, though they weren't officially part of the military at the time, flew over 60 million miles in every type of aircraft the Army had. The scriptwriter worked all sorts of accurate details into their story that I only noticed afterwards, when I learned more about WASP history.
A low budget is a given considering the market for which the film was produced. Making good use of what budget one's given through a clever premise and good writing, sharing a bit of history worth remembering as well as referencing the classic 1950s atomic threat trope, ariel dogfights with dinosaurs -- it all adds up to a film that is appealing to me. Most appealing are the women in the crew: their reasonably accurate clothing and make-up, their camaraderie, their courage. I liked that there weren't long, lingering shots of victims' spouting blood. I'm there for the dinosaurs, not the damage they do to their victims.
There are viewers out there who find any film with female leads to be a waste of time. I'm glad the producers of this one felt differently. If I'd seen this film as a little girl, I'd have wanted to be a pilot when I grew up so I could fight the dinosaurs, too.
I read the book shortly after it was published in 1962 and again about ten years ago, so was eagerly awaiting the 2018 film version (which disappointed me terribly). I was a little nervous about watching this version but, after reading some of the user reviews, I took the plunge and was so glad I did.
The most important part of the book for me was the relationship between the three young people: Meg, Calvin and, of course, Charles Wallace. Meeting Meg and Charles Wallace felt just right but it was when we met Calvin that I knew at last I'd found the film adaptation I'd needed for so long -- Gregory Smith WAS my Calvin.
The 2018 film has more spectacular effects but this version has the kids who made the story interesting. It also ends with a very positive message -- a bit drawn out but satisfying, and making me want to revisit the book, again.
The most important part of the book for me was the relationship between the three young people: Meg, Calvin and, of course, Charles Wallace. Meeting Meg and Charles Wallace felt just right but it was when we met Calvin that I knew at last I'd found the film adaptation I'd needed for so long -- Gregory Smith WAS my Calvin.
The 2018 film has more spectacular effects but this version has the kids who made the story interesting. It also ends with a very positive message -- a bit drawn out but satisfying, and making me want to revisit the book, again.