Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Speakaboos - The Reading and Learning App for Kids
Education and Book
App
The only reading app designed to motivate kids to read! ** Over 200 interactive stories & songs that...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
The best Pixar film?
I have recently purchased a ‘100 Movies Bucket List’ scratch off poster, with the intention of finally crossing off all of the classic films I’ve never seen before. However with the current and ongoing COVID lockdowns, now seemed like a perfect time to watch all of the 100 films on this list including those I know and love. These will be watched in no particular order, and will be highly dependent on my mood and film availability. First on my list is Up.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Maps n Trax - Offline Maps, GPS Tracks & Waypoints
Navigation and Productivity
App
MAPS n TRAX is a VERSATILE and HIGHLY CUSTOMIZABLE offline map viewer, GPS track recording and...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A couple of years ago, news and health agencies the world over were concerned about a possible pandemic stemming from bird flu and swine flu. Thankfully like SARS a few years earlier, the outbreaks were rather small thanks to a wealth of precautionary information and measures. In the new film “Contagion” director Steven Soderbergh paints a frighteningly realistic look at a worldwide pandemic that spread without warning, and its devastating aftermath.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) becomes the most desirable girl in high school over one fateful summer; she's definitely not like the other girls her age though. While most guys want to do everything imaginable to her, she's turned them all down. The only guy she really gives the time of day is her best friend, Emmet (Michael Welch). That is until a certain incident at a pool party comes between them. Now nine months later, Mandy has distanced herself from Emmet and has a group of new friends. These friends have decided to invite Mandy to a ranch out in the middle of nowhere for a few days and the guys who tag along hope to accomplish what, up to this point, has been impossible. But when people begin to turn up missing, they soon realize that they're not alone and someone is taking their obsession with Mandy Lane a little too far.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
