Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Pale Blue Eye (2022) in Movies
Jan 15, 2023
Haunting and Intriguing
An eerie, gothic murder mystery pairing an ingenious Detective with a young Edgar Allan Poe is now streaming on Netflix and is the perfect way to shut out the January winds and hibernate on your couch and get involved in the mystery while sitting in front of a warm, roaring fire (or heat lamp) and your favorite warm (possibly adult) beverage).
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Fear Clinic (2014) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
A Horror Movie That Makes You Think!
The film revolves around a shooting that takes place in a diner that traumatizes a group of survivors who check themselves into the Fear Clinic, a clinic run by Dr.Andover a man who has created a unique way of treating phobia's using a revolutionary new technology called the fear chamber. The fear chamber works by re-animating your worst fears into hallucinations so you can combat your fear face to face. However within the story the fears start manifesting themselves in the real world and this new technology that Dr.Andover has created is slowly opening up a doorway to allow fear incarnate to wreak havoc on the patients of the clinic.
Fear Clinic has an incredibly strong cast line up with Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street) reprising his role as Dr.Andover, Thomas Dekker (Heroes) as Blake, Fiona Dourif (Curse of Chucky) as Sara a survivor of the diner shooting, Angelina Armani (Chromeskull 2) as another survivor Caylee and Corey Taylor in his first ever acting role as Bauer a porter at the clinic. Joining this stellar cast are a whole host of other amazing talent including Brandon Beemer, Cleopatra Coleman, Kevin Gage and Felisha Tirrell.
The movie as a whole was incredibly strong, what started off as an incredibly slow build up actually built the story up rather nicely and gave us some in depth character building and information, it is rare to see a good character build in indy horrors but Fear Clinic did it maybe even too much at times. Either way the second half of the movie eclipses the first by a long shot, once the story is set the action begins and with Bob Kurtzman and Steve Johnson behind the SPFX team the excitement and effects do not disappoint. As fear incarnate slowly starts to develop in the real world the SPFX team has amazingly brought this character to life taking on a persona that was unsettling to watch (Minus the visible bald cap on Robert Englund's head). The intro to the movie however slow always had a creepy and uncomfortable vibe, almost putting you in the clinic itself, testing your nerves, straining your ability to relax and always putting you on edge for what is about to come. It was a great touch and full credit to the team for drawing it out over the films duration without letting go of that emotion.
The film contains deep undertones and emotional depth in terms of people's fears and phobia's but there are some points within the movie that need to be tightened up a bit. Certain scenes need explaining more and as fear incarnate starts to manifest itself the build up and gore is lacking within the story so even thou the creature looks amazing, it doesn't strike fear into the audience which is a shame as now the audience is isolated from the story. Never the less the movie flows nicely and as it stands its a great introduction to a franchise but it does feels quite rushed in places and action is scarce in places as the build up is painstakingly drawn out, hopefully this is tightened up for the DVD release version or Director's cut.
Convoluted in places but a movie that stands higher than most Horror's that are being released at the present, a new generation of cerebral Horror. A movie that will make you think rather than spaced out watching the screen, a movie that when finished you'll rewind to make the jigsaw pieces fit. A very smart movie.
If you're used to watching Horror movies with a vacant mind then you will be disappointed with Fear Clinic, it's time to engage your brain, the Fear Clinic is open for business.
FEAR ON!
Fear Clinic has an incredibly strong cast line up with Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street) reprising his role as Dr.Andover, Thomas Dekker (Heroes) as Blake, Fiona Dourif (Curse of Chucky) as Sara a survivor of the diner shooting, Angelina Armani (Chromeskull 2) as another survivor Caylee and Corey Taylor in his first ever acting role as Bauer a porter at the clinic. Joining this stellar cast are a whole host of other amazing talent including Brandon Beemer, Cleopatra Coleman, Kevin Gage and Felisha Tirrell.
The movie as a whole was incredibly strong, what started off as an incredibly slow build up actually built the story up rather nicely and gave us some in depth character building and information, it is rare to see a good character build in indy horrors but Fear Clinic did it maybe even too much at times. Either way the second half of the movie eclipses the first by a long shot, once the story is set the action begins and with Bob Kurtzman and Steve Johnson behind the SPFX team the excitement and effects do not disappoint. As fear incarnate slowly starts to develop in the real world the SPFX team has amazingly brought this character to life taking on a persona that was unsettling to watch (Minus the visible bald cap on Robert Englund's head). The intro to the movie however slow always had a creepy and uncomfortable vibe, almost putting you in the clinic itself, testing your nerves, straining your ability to relax and always putting you on edge for what is about to come. It was a great touch and full credit to the team for drawing it out over the films duration without letting go of that emotion.
The film contains deep undertones and emotional depth in terms of people's fears and phobia's but there are some points within the movie that need to be tightened up a bit. Certain scenes need explaining more and as fear incarnate starts to manifest itself the build up and gore is lacking within the story so even thou the creature looks amazing, it doesn't strike fear into the audience which is a shame as now the audience is isolated from the story. Never the less the movie flows nicely and as it stands its a great introduction to a franchise but it does feels quite rushed in places and action is scarce in places as the build up is painstakingly drawn out, hopefully this is tightened up for the DVD release version or Director's cut.
Convoluted in places but a movie that stands higher than most Horror's that are being released at the present, a new generation of cerebral Horror. A movie that will make you think rather than spaced out watching the screen, a movie that when finished you'll rewind to make the jigsaw pieces fit. A very smart movie.
If you're used to watching Horror movies with a vacant mind then you will be disappointed with Fear Clinic, it's time to engage your brain, the Fear Clinic is open for business.
FEAR ON!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Cloverfield (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Shrouded in mystery and riding a wave of fan hype, “Cloverfield” has at last arrived in theaters and delivers the goods. The film is produced by J.J. Abrams who is the mastermind behind “LOST”, “Alias”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and the next “Star Trek Film”. With a pedigree like this, it is clear that Abrams has a clear understanding of what fans want in their action/fantasy and he supplies it in droves.
The film cleverly tells the story through footage from a video camera that has been recovered in what used to be Central Park. The audience informed of this in the opening scenes when a series of coded missives against a Government warning indicates that this footage is now classified.
The footage in the camera is footage of a group of friends preparing a surprise party for their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to go to Japan as part of his new job as a V.P. of his company. The fact that such a young man has raised to such a prestigious position shows that Rob is clearly a motivated young man with a future, and based on the large turnout at his party, a very popular one at that.
Through footage that has been recorded over and pops up occasionally in the film, we learn that Rob and his friend Beth (Odette Yustman) had a recent physical relationship that has caused issues between them due to Rob’s pending departure for Japan. This becomes heated at the party, as amongst the throngs of well wishers, Rob and Beth have a fight that ends with Beth leaving and Rob verbally lashing out at her.
As his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), and best friend Hud (T.J. Miller), try to console Rob, the party is wracked by a sever jolt, that startles everyone in attendance. Thinking it is an earthquake, the guests are informed via television that there has been a platform overturned in the harbor, and before the guests know what hit them, there is an explosion followed by the head of the Statue of Liberty hurling through the streets.
Horrified by the noise and destruction about them, many of the guests as well as the local populace seek to exit the city, and make their way toward bridges out of Manhattan. Things go from bad to worse, and Rob, Hud, Jason, and their friends soon find themselves trapped.
Wracked by guilt over his conversation with Beth, Rob is surprised when she calls him saying that she is injured and trapped, which forces Rob to make a decision, as he and his friends, race back towards the carnage, in an effort to save Beth instead of seeking the safety before them.
Thus the stage is set for one of the more entertaining films of this genre in recent memory. The film moves along briskly, as with a running time of an hour and ten minutes, never becomes dull or overstays its welcome.
The action is intense as Rob and his friends are faced with a world gone mad, as what was once thought to be a terrorist attack goes madly astray when they see a giant creature wrecking havoc on Manhattan despite the best efforts of the military.
The intense action combined with the constant unknown as well as the suspense of the situation helps place the audience into the shoes of the characters, who unlike most genre films, come across as very real characters, despite little attention to their histories. This works very well, as we know what we need to about them as they are clearly close friends who when faced in an amazing situation, support and listen to each other without turning on one another.
Some may question the lack of answers in the film as many of the who, what, when, and why’s of the situation are not clearly explained, but the film works this in, as the audience learns and sees, only what the group of ordinary people see as they flee the streets. Since they are not high ranking military or government types, they are not given the answer, nor do they become fixated on finding them, as they are simply trying to survive.
Since the film is shot from a video camera, there are many scenes that are very herky-jerky, and some people exiting our screener mentioned that they were a bit dizzy from all of the motion. While it was at times difficult, it was also very realistic, and added to the immersion process, as you at times truly felt like you were right at Rob’s side with his friends. I did have to question how the camera, which was on constantly during the ordeal, never lost charge or needed to have the battery replaced, but in fantasy, suspension of belief is often a key criteria to propel the plot.
Much has been speculated as to the creature that is key to the plot of the film as very fan sites have run wild with speculation and claims to have the inside story. While I will not ruin the surprise, I will say that it turns out to be highly effective and engaging, and only adds to the mystery and horror of the situation. Once again, Abrams and company are to be applauded for taking an old formula of a creature on the loose in a large city, and making it fresh and invigorating.
“Cloverfield” is a solid and highly entertaining film, that would stand up with any of the past summer blockbusters and was a very welcome and refreshing way to kick off the 08 movie year, and a nice change from the comedies and dramas that usually dominate theaters this time of year.
The film cleverly tells the story through footage from a video camera that has been recovered in what used to be Central Park. The audience informed of this in the opening scenes when a series of coded missives against a Government warning indicates that this footage is now classified.
The footage in the camera is footage of a group of friends preparing a surprise party for their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to go to Japan as part of his new job as a V.P. of his company. The fact that such a young man has raised to such a prestigious position shows that Rob is clearly a motivated young man with a future, and based on the large turnout at his party, a very popular one at that.
Through footage that has been recorded over and pops up occasionally in the film, we learn that Rob and his friend Beth (Odette Yustman) had a recent physical relationship that has caused issues between them due to Rob’s pending departure for Japan. This becomes heated at the party, as amongst the throngs of well wishers, Rob and Beth have a fight that ends with Beth leaving and Rob verbally lashing out at her.
As his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), and best friend Hud (T.J. Miller), try to console Rob, the party is wracked by a sever jolt, that startles everyone in attendance. Thinking it is an earthquake, the guests are informed via television that there has been a platform overturned in the harbor, and before the guests know what hit them, there is an explosion followed by the head of the Statue of Liberty hurling through the streets.
Horrified by the noise and destruction about them, many of the guests as well as the local populace seek to exit the city, and make their way toward bridges out of Manhattan. Things go from bad to worse, and Rob, Hud, Jason, and their friends soon find themselves trapped.
Wracked by guilt over his conversation with Beth, Rob is surprised when she calls him saying that she is injured and trapped, which forces Rob to make a decision, as he and his friends, race back towards the carnage, in an effort to save Beth instead of seeking the safety before them.
Thus the stage is set for one of the more entertaining films of this genre in recent memory. The film moves along briskly, as with a running time of an hour and ten minutes, never becomes dull or overstays its welcome.
The action is intense as Rob and his friends are faced with a world gone mad, as what was once thought to be a terrorist attack goes madly astray when they see a giant creature wrecking havoc on Manhattan despite the best efforts of the military.
The intense action combined with the constant unknown as well as the suspense of the situation helps place the audience into the shoes of the characters, who unlike most genre films, come across as very real characters, despite little attention to their histories. This works very well, as we know what we need to about them as they are clearly close friends who when faced in an amazing situation, support and listen to each other without turning on one another.
Some may question the lack of answers in the film as many of the who, what, when, and why’s of the situation are not clearly explained, but the film works this in, as the audience learns and sees, only what the group of ordinary people see as they flee the streets. Since they are not high ranking military or government types, they are not given the answer, nor do they become fixated on finding them, as they are simply trying to survive.
Since the film is shot from a video camera, there are many scenes that are very herky-jerky, and some people exiting our screener mentioned that they were a bit dizzy from all of the motion. While it was at times difficult, it was also very realistic, and added to the immersion process, as you at times truly felt like you were right at Rob’s side with his friends. I did have to question how the camera, which was on constantly during the ordeal, never lost charge or needed to have the battery replaced, but in fantasy, suspension of belief is often a key criteria to propel the plot.
Much has been speculated as to the creature that is key to the plot of the film as very fan sites have run wild with speculation and claims to have the inside story. While I will not ruin the surprise, I will say that it turns out to be highly effective and engaging, and only adds to the mystery and horror of the situation. Once again, Abrams and company are to be applauded for taking an old formula of a creature on the loose in a large city, and making it fresh and invigorating.
“Cloverfield” is a solid and highly entertaining film, that would stand up with any of the past summer blockbusters and was a very welcome and refreshing way to kick off the 08 movie year, and a nice change from the comedies and dramas that usually dominate theaters this time of year.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Night Olivia Fell in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Each chapter of this story is told from two views, Olivia and Abi (Olivia’s mother). The story starts off intense and grabbing when Abi gets news that her daughter has fallen from a bridge and is now considered brain dead – but she is being kept alive because she is also pregnant. That plot thickens…
Olivia is a typical teenager. She gets good grades and is active in school sports and volunteers – most of the time she does so, so that her mother ‘stays happy and stays off her back’. It’s disheartening to hear, but as you read the story, you understand Abi’s need to ‘keep Olivia’ safe and know a need to know where she is, who she is with, and what she is doing. Although, there is such thing as a little too protective, but I won’t go into that, that’s not the point.
Olivia has a boyfriend, whom I swear has male PMS and wants sex (and Olivia is giving it to him, though she’s feeling the pressure) and a best friend who at one point was mad at her and got the whole class to stop speaking to her. So, these two characters are not exactly on a list of people to like or even tolerate.
Abi tries to find the truth behind how Olivia fell and how she became pregnant. A lot of secrets are revealed.
The more I read the story, the more I felt like this was turning into a morbid ‘Parent Trap’ story. I say this, because, during a college trip, Olivia meets a girl named Kendall, who could very well BE her twin.
So, I’m like, great, a twin separation story – Nope, I was wrong, which is not a bad thing.
I think I would have enjoyed this story a bit better if not for realizing who was responsible for Olivia ‘falling’. To me, it felt predictable. I also had some issues with some dialogue coming from teenagers.
“You made me look like a fool!” – Do ANY teenagers today say ‘fool’? That’s me being a bit nit picky, but I had to add it, just cause.
All in all, it was a decent story and I stayed interested, even through some of the ‘predictable’ scenes and the outcome of the story. I will say, I did make a few guesses, and I was only right once or twice. I’m not sure if that’s a upper, but I thought it was a good story, nonetheless.
Olivia is a typical teenager. She gets good grades and is active in school sports and volunteers – most of the time she does so, so that her mother ‘stays happy and stays off her back’. It’s disheartening to hear, but as you read the story, you understand Abi’s need to ‘keep Olivia’ safe and know a need to know where she is, who she is with, and what she is doing. Although, there is such thing as a little too protective, but I won’t go into that, that’s not the point.
Olivia has a boyfriend, whom I swear has male PMS and wants sex (and Olivia is giving it to him, though she’s feeling the pressure) and a best friend who at one point was mad at her and got the whole class to stop speaking to her. So, these two characters are not exactly on a list of people to like or even tolerate.
Abi tries to find the truth behind how Olivia fell and how she became pregnant. A lot of secrets are revealed.
The more I read the story, the more I felt like this was turning into a morbid ‘Parent Trap’ story. I say this, because, during a college trip, Olivia meets a girl named Kendall, who could very well BE her twin.
So, I’m like, great, a twin separation story – Nope, I was wrong, which is not a bad thing.
I think I would have enjoyed this story a bit better if not for realizing who was responsible for Olivia ‘falling’. To me, it felt predictable. I also had some issues with some dialogue coming from teenagers.
“You made me look like a fool!” – Do ANY teenagers today say ‘fool’? That’s me being a bit nit picky, but I had to add it, just cause.
All in all, it was a decent story and I stayed interested, even through some of the ‘predictable’ scenes and the outcome of the story. I will say, I did make a few guesses, and I was only right once or twice. I’m not sure if that’s a upper, but I thought it was a good story, nonetheless.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 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/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Jun 9, 2021
Bob Odenkirk (1 more)
A fun, adrenaline-fuelled script
What Kevin McAllister did once all grown up
The "Nobody" in question is Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) who lives a humdrum suburban life: a 9-to-5 managerial job at his in-laws manufacturing plant; distant wife (Connie Nielsen); two kids, Blake (Gage Munroe) and Abby (Paisley Cadorath); an elderly father (Christopher Lloyd) in a local care home. Basically, the Mansell's are all living the American dream, but all subject to the monotonous grind of that daily life for week after week. That all changes in the middle of the night after Hutch confronts two bungling burglars and - in the full gaze of his son - 'wimps out' on taking action. All the silent rage and embarrassment has to go somewhere, and it does - on a late night bus ride; an event that sets off a sequence of increasingly bloody encounters!
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Never Let You Go in Books
Jan 22, 2018
Lindsey Nash has not had the easiest of lives.
She escaped in the dark one night with her six-year-old daughter, Sophie, and just a few of their possessions. They were running from Andrew, Lindsey's drunken, abusive, and possessive husband. Lindsey knew that it was only a matter of time before Andrew killed her, leaving Sophie without her mom. But the night the two disappear, something else happens: a drunken Andrew gets behind the wheel, crashes his vehicle, and kills another woman. The accident puts him in prison for 10 years, giving Lindsey a small sense of freedom, but it's short-lived. Before she knows it, he's out, and headed for the town where Lindsey and Sophie have started over. Strange things start happen, and Lindsey is terrified for her life again--and Sophie's. Andrew claims prison has changed him, but Lindsey can't believe it. How will she and her daughter ever be safe?
This is my fourth Stevens book, and I know by now that she will keep you up late, frantically turning the pages, wondering what will happen. Of the ones I've read, I still think That Night is my favorite, but this one was quite an enjoyable and fast-paced read as well. I blew through it on vacation in about 24 hours, and it had a chilling creepiness to it that made me feel like I should be looking over my shoulder or continually pulling the curtains shut.
First, let's just put out there, as with most of Stevens' books, a big warning for abuse triggers. Please make that known to anyone who might be affected by such a storyline.
One of the best things about this novel was the way Stevens slowly unfurled bits of the plot, making you go "wow" each time something was revealed. The book is divided into three parts, and the first one switches between the present and the past, showcasing some of Lindsey and Andrew's abusive marriage. It's very effective. In the later parts, we hear from both Lindsey and Sophie, who is now a nearly grown teenager. Again, it's a compelling storytelling tool and allows Stevens to work the unreliable narrator angle. Is Lindsey just imagining all this? Can we trust her? Has she just brainwashed Sophie against her father?
The novel sets up a series of suspects, and I admit that I guessed "who did it" before page 100, but I still enjoyed the book immensely. It took me longer to work out why, and I was quite engrossed in the characters. I liked both Lindsey and Sophie, though I didn't love them or feel particularly attached to either, but I so enjoyed the mechanics of the story and what was going to come next that I was completely engaged nonetheless. The novel is very chilling, very eerie, and written so vividly that you can quite imagine many of its more frightening and suspenseful scenes. I can easily see it being made into a movie where I would be peeking tensely through my sleeves.
She escaped in the dark one night with her six-year-old daughter, Sophie, and just a few of their possessions. They were running from Andrew, Lindsey's drunken, abusive, and possessive husband. Lindsey knew that it was only a matter of time before Andrew killed her, leaving Sophie without her mom. But the night the two disappear, something else happens: a drunken Andrew gets behind the wheel, crashes his vehicle, and kills another woman. The accident puts him in prison for 10 years, giving Lindsey a small sense of freedom, but it's short-lived. Before she knows it, he's out, and headed for the town where Lindsey and Sophie have started over. Strange things start happen, and Lindsey is terrified for her life again--and Sophie's. Andrew claims prison has changed him, but Lindsey can't believe it. How will she and her daughter ever be safe?
This is my fourth Stevens book, and I know by now that she will keep you up late, frantically turning the pages, wondering what will happen. Of the ones I've read, I still think That Night is my favorite, but this one was quite an enjoyable and fast-paced read as well. I blew through it on vacation in about 24 hours, and it had a chilling creepiness to it that made me feel like I should be looking over my shoulder or continually pulling the curtains shut.
First, let's just put out there, as with most of Stevens' books, a big warning for abuse triggers. Please make that known to anyone who might be affected by such a storyline.
One of the best things about this novel was the way Stevens slowly unfurled bits of the plot, making you go "wow" each time something was revealed. The book is divided into three parts, and the first one switches between the present and the past, showcasing some of Lindsey and Andrew's abusive marriage. It's very effective. In the later parts, we hear from both Lindsey and Sophie, who is now a nearly grown teenager. Again, it's a compelling storytelling tool and allows Stevens to work the unreliable narrator angle. Is Lindsey just imagining all this? Can we trust her? Has she just brainwashed Sophie against her father?
The novel sets up a series of suspects, and I admit that I guessed "who did it" before page 100, but I still enjoyed the book immensely. It took me longer to work out why, and I was quite engrossed in the characters. I liked both Lindsey and Sophie, though I didn't love them or feel particularly attached to either, but I so enjoyed the mechanics of the story and what was going to come next that I was completely engaged nonetheless. The novel is very chilling, very eerie, and written so vividly that you can quite imagine many of its more frightening and suspenseful scenes. I can easily see it being made into a movie where I would be peeking tensely through my sleeves.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Searching (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A phenomenally intriguing social media-focused movie.
There have been many movies that have featured computing and, more specifically, social media at their heart. Some these have used the device of the view “from the screen”: 2016’s entertaining “Nerve” had elements of this, with the majority of the rest of the film being ‘augmented reality’ over the video. But it was 2014’s teen-horror “Unfriended” that set a new bar being seen entirely through a computer screen. No surprise then that the producer of that one – Timur Bekmambetov – is also behind “Searching”. For – although taking a few liberties with news vidoes, that may or may not be showing on Youtube – the whole film is shot through computer screens.
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.