Search
Search results
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Crow (1994) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Close to the source material (2 more)
Great Cast
A powerful and emotional film
A Powerful Classic
The Crow is one of my all time favourite films as well as one of my all time favourite graphic novels.
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Three Heart Echo in Books
May 16, 2018
Three Heart Echo by Keary Taylor ended up on my reading list by yet another mislabeling on NetGalley, I must admit. As seen in the title image above, the book is a paranormal suspense. If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ll no doubt guess that I grabbed it from the horror genre titles. Fortunately, after revisiting its cover I can at least say that its actual genre is the right one. While Three Heart Echo does have some elements of horror, it reads more like a paranormal-themed Lifetime movie.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.
“I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.”
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1994, I fondly remember playing Warcraft on my PC as well as the fun of connecting with a friend over a dial up modem for hours of fun. Blizzard’s online matchmaking portal also served as a source of countless chatrooms in the pre-internet days and through the two sequels and add on packs that followed as well as the huge success of World of Warcraft, the name Warcraft came to symbolize quality and fun to millions of fans the world over.
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/