Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 8, 2020
A courtesy tap
If you were ever going to deliberately hack-off anyone in real life, Russell Crowe would probably be low on the list. A genuine bear of a man! He looks like he could kill you with a single swipe of his clawed furry hand!
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Kid Who Would Be King (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
We've had plenty of spins on the legend of King Arthur over the years. Probably the most enjoyable for me was BBC show 'Merlin', which ran for 5 seasons between 2008 and 2012, focusing on the early life of the famous sorcerer and King Arthur. Probably the worst take on it all was Guy Ritchie's god awful 'Legend Of The Sword' back in 2017. Joe Cornish, writer/director of the brilliant 2011 movie 'Attack The Block', follows that movie with a fresh spin of his own in 'The Kid Who Would Be King'.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Geostorm (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 90's are back
I’ve got to start by telling you I wasn’t holding out much hope for Geostorm and that’s for quite a few reasons. Firstly, Gerard Butler’s career has been on a bit of a slide recently.
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mijnlieff in Tabletop Games
Mar 3, 2021
This has happened to me a few times recently and I am starting to rethink my entire approach to board games. You see, I set a game in front of me, look at it, open it, read the rules, and then set it up to play. But on these few occasions recently I read the rules and think to myself, “This will be ok I guess.” But then I play it. I play it and then fall head over heels in love with it. Such has happened again, folks. This time with a game I didn’t know existed, didn’t know I would be receiving, and still don’t know how to pronounce. This is Mijnlieff (mine-leaf maybe?).
Typically I explain the theme here and what players’ end goals are. Mijnlieff is a two player abstract strategy game that has no real theme, though the art style uses lots of leaf iconography and the color scheme is very Autumnal. The winner of Mijnlieff is they who score the most points at the end of the game by constructing the most (or longest) sets of 3 tiles in a row.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup each player will choose a color of tiles (or I guess just one player chooses and the other is stuck with the unchosen), and the back of the game bag is placed on the center of the table to act as the game board. Decide the starting player and the game may begin!
On a player’s turn they must place one of their tiles on one of the leaf symbols printed on the bag (the leaf symbols mean nothing other than to show where to place tiles). Easy. The first player will place their very first tile on one of the outermost leaf symbols to begin the game. The second player will then place their tile on the board depending on which tile was just placed by their opponent. You see, in Mijnlieff players cannot just place tiles willy-nilly, no! The tile immediately placed dictates where the next tile may be placed.
For example, if an opponent had just placed the N/S/E/W cross tile (Straight), then the next tile may only be placed on one of those leaves pointed at by the cross. Similarly with the diagonal cross (Diagonal) for diagonal leaves. The leaf tile with a solid circle around it (Puller) instructs the next player to place their tile on any leaf space that touches the original tile, even diagonally. Conversely, the leaf tile with a broken circle (Pusher) means the opposite: the next tile may be placed in any space that is NOT able to touch the original tile.
Players have access to two tiles of each flavor and they are attempting to rid their hand of tiles and create the most lines of three or four tiles for one or two points respectively. Once one player rids themselves of all their tiles the next player may lay just one last tile in an attempt to score more points. Whichever player earns the most points is the winner and, undoubtedly, will wish to play again immediately afterward.
Components. The version I was sent is the most recent XVgames Bagstracts edition in the fancy brown bag. The bag is great, and not only carries the components but doubles as the game board. I mean, I have not really seen that anywhere else. What a great and versatile component. The tiles are all very nicely painted wooden tiles with very clear iconography, which is much appreciated. The rulebook is fantastic and explains the game splendidly. Also included is a set of modular 2×2 mats that can be assembled in ANY fashion to create personalized game boards. I think this is a wonderfully-produced game with excellent components. The art is minimal but effective, and it has orange as a main color, so I applaud that choice as well.
The gameplay is what I would like to rave about here. My wife and I enjoy abstract strategy games together, but I have never seen her be absolutely magnetized to a game as much as she is to Mijnlieff. Right away, the first day I asked her to play it with me we ended up playing it eight or nine times that day. And you know what? We both really were jonesing to play some more. The game is relatively quick, with games lasting around 10 minutes each, but the neural exercises happening whilst playing is such so fantastic.
None of the tiles’ actions are difficult to understand, but each time a tile is placed my mind is racing with possibilities for my next turn. I do not suffer from Analysis Paralysis (AP), and my wife usually takes her times, but I do sit and think a bit more playing Mijnlieff. Sometimes you just need to play a tile to block the other player. You see, if you lay a tile and your opponent is unable to lay a tile legally according to your tile’s actions, then you get to place another tile ANYWHERE on the board. This could lead to a cascade of several tiles being laid on a turn, and THAT is what makes this simply an amazing design.
I now have four titles by designer Andy Hopwood that I will be reviewing, and if any of them are as thoughtful, beautiful, and well-designed I may have found another designer to add to my list of favorites. Purple Phoenix Games (plus my wife) give this one an incredibly respectful 11 / 12. I think what could make this game better is blinged out components. Everything in this bag is great, but Mijnlieff screams for high quality components and just sparkle everywhere. If you need a thinky abstract for two players from a smaller publisher and designer, I plead with you to grab a copy of Mijnlieff. I find it to be a superior design, quick-playing, and just hits all the right spots for my wife and me. And once you receive your copy we can record ourselves pronouncing the title and sending our recordings to the designer for him to choose the closest butchering.
Typically I explain the theme here and what players’ end goals are. Mijnlieff is a two player abstract strategy game that has no real theme, though the art style uses lots of leaf iconography and the color scheme is very Autumnal. The winner of Mijnlieff is they who score the most points at the end of the game by constructing the most (or longest) sets of 3 tiles in a row.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup each player will choose a color of tiles (or I guess just one player chooses and the other is stuck with the unchosen), and the back of the game bag is placed on the center of the table to act as the game board. Decide the starting player and the game may begin!
On a player’s turn they must place one of their tiles on one of the leaf symbols printed on the bag (the leaf symbols mean nothing other than to show where to place tiles). Easy. The first player will place their very first tile on one of the outermost leaf symbols to begin the game. The second player will then place their tile on the board depending on which tile was just placed by their opponent. You see, in Mijnlieff players cannot just place tiles willy-nilly, no! The tile immediately placed dictates where the next tile may be placed.
For example, if an opponent had just placed the N/S/E/W cross tile (Straight), then the next tile may only be placed on one of those leaves pointed at by the cross. Similarly with the diagonal cross (Diagonal) for diagonal leaves. The leaf tile with a solid circle around it (Puller) instructs the next player to place their tile on any leaf space that touches the original tile, even diagonally. Conversely, the leaf tile with a broken circle (Pusher) means the opposite: the next tile may be placed in any space that is NOT able to touch the original tile.
Players have access to two tiles of each flavor and they are attempting to rid their hand of tiles and create the most lines of three or four tiles for one or two points respectively. Once one player rids themselves of all their tiles the next player may lay just one last tile in an attempt to score more points. Whichever player earns the most points is the winner and, undoubtedly, will wish to play again immediately afterward.
Components. The version I was sent is the most recent XVgames Bagstracts edition in the fancy brown bag. The bag is great, and not only carries the components but doubles as the game board. I mean, I have not really seen that anywhere else. What a great and versatile component. The tiles are all very nicely painted wooden tiles with very clear iconography, which is much appreciated. The rulebook is fantastic and explains the game splendidly. Also included is a set of modular 2×2 mats that can be assembled in ANY fashion to create personalized game boards. I think this is a wonderfully-produced game with excellent components. The art is minimal but effective, and it has orange as a main color, so I applaud that choice as well.
The gameplay is what I would like to rave about here. My wife and I enjoy abstract strategy games together, but I have never seen her be absolutely magnetized to a game as much as she is to Mijnlieff. Right away, the first day I asked her to play it with me we ended up playing it eight or nine times that day. And you know what? We both really were jonesing to play some more. The game is relatively quick, with games lasting around 10 minutes each, but the neural exercises happening whilst playing is such so fantastic.
None of the tiles’ actions are difficult to understand, but each time a tile is placed my mind is racing with possibilities for my next turn. I do not suffer from Analysis Paralysis (AP), and my wife usually takes her times, but I do sit and think a bit more playing Mijnlieff. Sometimes you just need to play a tile to block the other player. You see, if you lay a tile and your opponent is unable to lay a tile legally according to your tile’s actions, then you get to place another tile ANYWHERE on the board. This could lead to a cascade of several tiles being laid on a turn, and THAT is what makes this simply an amazing design.
I now have four titles by designer Andy Hopwood that I will be reviewing, and if any of them are as thoughtful, beautiful, and well-designed I may have found another designer to add to my list of favorites. Purple Phoenix Games (plus my wife) give this one an incredibly respectful 11 / 12. I think what could make this game better is blinged out components. Everything in this bag is great, but Mijnlieff screams for high quality components and just sparkle everywhere. If you need a thinky abstract for two players from a smaller publisher and designer, I plead with you to grab a copy of Mijnlieff. I find it to be a superior design, quick-playing, and just hits all the right spots for my wife and me. And once you receive your copy we can record ourselves pronouncing the title and sending our recordings to the designer for him to choose the closest butchering.
EasterBunnyKiller (31 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Saw this before starting my shift the Saturday of opening weekend. I would have rated this higher if it hadn't hurt my fanboy feelings as much as it did, but I am of two minds about this movie.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Toy Story 3 (2010) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
Just Plain Awesome
The gang is back in full form for Toy Story 3 as Andy heads off to college and they head to daycare. If you didn't know, this won't be the last installment. Yes, they are making a Toy Story 4. I used to think that was preposterous. Then it hit me that this franchise is probably one of the best trilogies done. Ever. Of all time. I can imagine the creative minds of Pixar sitting in a room and one of them pulls a Danny Ocean: "You think we need one more? You think we need one more. Alright...we'll get one more."
I can't think of many negatives around the film but I sure can praise it to kingdom come. The creativity that goes into this franchise is amazing and the third installment is no exception. One of my favorite scenes includes a private hideaway in the top of a snack machine where some of the toys are playing poker. These moments of great imagination are not only clever but also evoked my emotions as a viewer. Some moments were funny, others heartwrenching. Meanwhile that scene were the 3-year-olds demolish the toy room for the first time was just plain terrifying.
Toy Story 3 grabs your attention immediately as it gets off to an exciting start. A strong part of what keeps the film interesting is the emotional connection between kids and toys. When we're toddlers, we destroy everything in our paths toys included. As we get older, not only do we learn to appreciate those toys and what they do for us, we start to treat them more intimately, almost if they were friends. Eventually that love fades to mere memories and it's not long before toys are once again seen as mere objects. It's touching to watch the trouble the toys go through in the beginning to regain Andy's attention. Andy's moved on, but the toys can't accept it.
There is a scene where Woody is escaping from a bathroom. Right before he reaches up to grab the toilet seat, he puts some tissue down. It's the small touches like these that propel this movie to greatness. I give Toy Story 3 a 97.
I can't think of many negatives around the film but I sure can praise it to kingdom come. The creativity that goes into this franchise is amazing and the third installment is no exception. One of my favorite scenes includes a private hideaway in the top of a snack machine where some of the toys are playing poker. These moments of great imagination are not only clever but also evoked my emotions as a viewer. Some moments were funny, others heartwrenching. Meanwhile that scene were the 3-year-olds demolish the toy room for the first time was just plain terrifying.
Toy Story 3 grabs your attention immediately as it gets off to an exciting start. A strong part of what keeps the film interesting is the emotional connection between kids and toys. When we're toddlers, we destroy everything in our paths toys included. As we get older, not only do we learn to appreciate those toys and what they do for us, we start to treat them more intimately, almost if they were friends. Eventually that love fades to mere memories and it's not long before toys are once again seen as mere objects. It's touching to watch the trouble the toys go through in the beginning to regain Andy's attention. Andy's moved on, but the toys can't accept it.
There is a scene where Woody is escaping from a bathroom. Right before he reaches up to grab the toilet seat, he puts some tissue down. It's the small touches like these that propel this movie to greatness. I give Toy Story 3 a 97.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Baggage Handler in Books
Nov 4, 2019
n a similar vein to The Travelers Gift by Andy Andrews or Dinner with a Perfect Stranger by David Gregory, The Baggage Handler is a contemporary story that explores one question: What baggage are you carrying?
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
JT (287 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
“For 27 years, I dreamt of you. I craved you… I’ve missed you!” The return of Pennywise the Dancing Clown was one of the most eagerly anticipated horror icons of the year – and we weren’t left disappointed.
Bill Skarsgård‘s demented shape-shifting entity is a performance for the horror ages, as he yet again terrifies the Losers Club. Now all grown up but still suffering from their traumatic problems and insecurities, the group must reunite once again to honour a promise they made to each other all those years ago.
Stephen King’s mammoth book would always be a hard piece of work to adapt, but director Andy Muschietti has more to play with this time around – and he doesn’t hold back. Kicking off proceedings with a rather nasty homophobic attack, Muschietti sets out his stall for what is a nerve-shredding 160 minutes.
Fast forward 27-years and the Losers Club appear to be living successful lives, having left the town of Derry and their pasts behind. However, it is all about to catch up them when Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only one not to leave, calls each one, in turn, to reveal that ‘It‘ has returned.
It is fantastically well cast with both young and old actors delivering excellent performances.
In shock and not willing to continue the fight, the group are brought back together by their close-knit bond for each other and the willingness to end the horror that has plagued them for almost three decades – however, Pennywise is not going down without a fight.
Flashbacks between young and old work very well and connect the timeline and narrative with seamless precision. It is fantastically well cast with both young and old actors delivering excellent performances. Rarely does it ever feel disjointed? Skarsgård clearly has fun and his terror is matched by the inclusion of several other monsters, equally as terrifying as the white-faced clown.
The ending might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but die-hard fans of the book should lavish praise on Muschietti’s interpretation. The furious pace at which it is delivered will be more than enough to keep viewers strapped to their seats.
Bill Skarsgård‘s demented shape-shifting entity is a performance for the horror ages, as he yet again terrifies the Losers Club. Now all grown up but still suffering from their traumatic problems and insecurities, the group must reunite once again to honour a promise they made to each other all those years ago.
Stephen King’s mammoth book would always be a hard piece of work to adapt, but director Andy Muschietti has more to play with this time around – and he doesn’t hold back. Kicking off proceedings with a rather nasty homophobic attack, Muschietti sets out his stall for what is a nerve-shredding 160 minutes.
Fast forward 27-years and the Losers Club appear to be living successful lives, having left the town of Derry and their pasts behind. However, it is all about to catch up them when Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only one not to leave, calls each one, in turn, to reveal that ‘It‘ has returned.
It is fantastically well cast with both young and old actors delivering excellent performances.
In shock and not willing to continue the fight, the group are brought back together by their close-knit bond for each other and the willingness to end the horror that has plagued them for almost three decades – however, Pennywise is not going down without a fight.
Flashbacks between young and old work very well and connect the timeline and narrative with seamless precision. It is fantastically well cast with both young and old actors delivering excellent performances. Rarely does it ever feel disjointed? Skarsgård clearly has fun and his terror is matched by the inclusion of several other monsters, equally as terrifying as the white-faced clown.
The ending might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but die-hard fans of the book should lavish praise on Muschietti’s interpretation. The furious pace at which it is delivered will be more than enough to keep viewers strapped to their seats.