Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Species: The Awakening (2007) in Movies
Nov 4, 2020
I can quite comfortably say that Species: The Awakening - the fourth and thankfully last entry in the series to date - is one of the worst films I've ever put myself through.
Cheap horror films can occasionally find salvation in having a sort of charm to them, shitty yet endearing if you will, but unfortunately, there's more charm in my left testicle than in Species 4.
When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in they aren't even trying cheap. The whole film is drenched in a weird green lighting which makes it looks like a discount version of CSI. There's not even any practical gore to write home about. Not only is it seldom, but when things get violent, it looks like the blood was added using Microsoft Paint. It's dreadful.
I don't like to bash actors, they are only following directions after all, but Christ, no one on screen seems remotely invested in what they're doing. The dialogue is lazy, and half of the characters are just creeping around pulling "scary" faces whilst wearing "spooky" contact lenses. You know when a load of people on your Facebook friends-list update their profile pictures at Halloween with whatever costume they've put together, and they're pulling a cringey dead eye scary face just to add to the illusion - this film is basically that but for nearly two hours.
Talking about the runtime - fuck me it's gruelling. I'm pretty sure I drifted off at one point, but everything that's happening is so damn boring that by the time the credits roll, it becomes clear that Species: The Awakening is in fact an edurance test, designed to see how much dogshit the audience will take. At least, it feels that way.
It's abysmal, and I'm now in a bad mood, thanks a lot Species.
Cheap horror films can occasionally find salvation in having a sort of charm to them, shitty yet endearing if you will, but unfortunately, there's more charm in my left testicle than in Species 4.
When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in they aren't even trying cheap. The whole film is drenched in a weird green lighting which makes it looks like a discount version of CSI. There's not even any practical gore to write home about. Not only is it seldom, but when things get violent, it looks like the blood was added using Microsoft Paint. It's dreadful.
I don't like to bash actors, they are only following directions after all, but Christ, no one on screen seems remotely invested in what they're doing. The dialogue is lazy, and half of the characters are just creeping around pulling "scary" faces whilst wearing "spooky" contact lenses. You know when a load of people on your Facebook friends-list update their profile pictures at Halloween with whatever costume they've put together, and they're pulling a cringey dead eye scary face just to add to the illusion - this film is basically that but for nearly two hours.
Talking about the runtime - fuck me it's gruelling. I'm pretty sure I drifted off at one point, but everything that's happening is so damn boring that by the time the credits roll, it becomes clear that Species: The Awakening is in fact an edurance test, designed to see how much dogshit the audience will take. At least, it feels that way.
It's abysmal, and I'm now in a bad mood, thanks a lot Species.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Using familiar themes can be a risk. What we have seen in previous films that define a style, becomes cliché and bores the audience. Then there are times when movies turn the trope on its head and gives us a clever take on the familiar. Christopher Landon (Scout’s Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse) has directed a fun romp in suspense and horror. Yes, there is the blatant reference to Groundhog Day, but this film is definitely a homage to John Carpenter, the master of the genre.
We know from the trailer that this is a horror/suspense loop and there are expectations set in this type of film. The young, attractive, woman, stalked by an unknown, masked assailant with a penchant for cutlery. As we know, Tree (Jessica Rothe) gets killed repeatedly on her birthday. We know it’s a slasher flick, expecting to see lots of blood and gore. Putting the main character in a time loop is definitely a twist in the storytelling.
Using repetition in film can be a tricky, stalling the momentum of the film. There was a moment during where I wondered when the loop would end, creating the feeling of hopelessness. It is at that time where Tree’s through process shifts and we travel with her in this never ending day. It takes a few times in the loop for Tree’s character to become enlightened She does figure out that each return is a do-over, an opportunity to make different choices.
The film also tips it’s hat to the college/high school, mean girl movies and definitely a nod to John Hughes Sixteen Candles. It had humor, wit and clever character development, I certainly did not expect to enjoy the film as much as I did. I would definitely watch it again to catch all of the references.
We know from the trailer that this is a horror/suspense loop and there are expectations set in this type of film. The young, attractive, woman, stalked by an unknown, masked assailant with a penchant for cutlery. As we know, Tree (Jessica Rothe) gets killed repeatedly on her birthday. We know it’s a slasher flick, expecting to see lots of blood and gore. Putting the main character in a time loop is definitely a twist in the storytelling.
Using repetition in film can be a tricky, stalling the momentum of the film. There was a moment during where I wondered when the loop would end, creating the feeling of hopelessness. It is at that time where Tree’s through process shifts and we travel with her in this never ending day. It takes a few times in the loop for Tree’s character to become enlightened She does figure out that each return is a do-over, an opportunity to make different choices.
The film also tips it’s hat to the college/high school, mean girl movies and definitely a nod to John Hughes Sixteen Candles. It had humor, wit and clever character development, I certainly did not expect to enjoy the film as much as I did. I would definitely watch it again to catch all of the references.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2020
The hugely popular Mortal Kombat franchise has a new cinematic entry with the release of Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion’s Revenge. The film is based on the very popular game series which began in the arcades and grew to dominate home gaming systems.
The franchise has also included theatrical films, toys, and scores of merchandise and the recent Mortal Kombat XI game was a massive success as well.
With news of a new live-action film in the works; Warner Bros has given fans something that truly fits the franchise well in the form of an R-Rated animated film.
While the prior films had a PG-13 rating, this one relishes the gore and violence and gives fans plenty of what they have come to expect.
The plot follows elements of the game and early film in that the evil Shao Khan has called forth the champions from the various realms to fight in a generational tournament where the realm who wins 10 strait events will have control over all the realms.
With 9 consecutive wins in place for Shao Khan and his champion Goro (Kevin Michael Richardson), the God Raiden (Dave B. Mitchell), has assembled a team of champions to save Earth.
There is Liu Kang (Jordan Rodrigues), Sonya Blade (Jennifer Carpenter), and the ego maniac Johnny Cage (Joel McHale).
The team must battle all manner of enemies which includes a very impressive list from the game series and it was great to see so many of them appear even if their roles were small.
The main story focuses on Scorpion (Patrick Seitz) and his attempt to regain what was taken from him and it is his backstory which sets the tone and frames much of the events.
Action wise the film delivers as there are the moves, graphic internal close ups, and gore that fans will expect. There are also a few surprises along the way that I do not want to spoil. I did wonder why every creature in the film had red blood as I do remember there being a bit of variety amongst the non-human creatures but this is a minor fact in what is otherwise an enjoyable film that fans should like.
While the plot does not hold much in the way of surprises; it does give fans the action and characters they love and does bring some interesting new elements to the franchise as well as the basis for some character growth in future films.
The animation and voice work is first-rate and really captures the look and tone of the series while having a visual style of its own.
The ending clearly seems to be setting up a sequel and I for one cannot wait to see what they have in store next.
4 stars out of 5
The franchise has also included theatrical films, toys, and scores of merchandise and the recent Mortal Kombat XI game was a massive success as well.
With news of a new live-action film in the works; Warner Bros has given fans something that truly fits the franchise well in the form of an R-Rated animated film.
While the prior films had a PG-13 rating, this one relishes the gore and violence and gives fans plenty of what they have come to expect.
The plot follows elements of the game and early film in that the evil Shao Khan has called forth the champions from the various realms to fight in a generational tournament where the realm who wins 10 strait events will have control over all the realms.
With 9 consecutive wins in place for Shao Khan and his champion Goro (Kevin Michael Richardson), the God Raiden (Dave B. Mitchell), has assembled a team of champions to save Earth.
There is Liu Kang (Jordan Rodrigues), Sonya Blade (Jennifer Carpenter), and the ego maniac Johnny Cage (Joel McHale).
The team must battle all manner of enemies which includes a very impressive list from the game series and it was great to see so many of them appear even if their roles were small.
The main story focuses on Scorpion (Patrick Seitz) and his attempt to regain what was taken from him and it is his backstory which sets the tone and frames much of the events.
Action wise the film delivers as there are the moves, graphic internal close ups, and gore that fans will expect. There are also a few surprises along the way that I do not want to spoil. I did wonder why every creature in the film had red blood as I do remember there being a bit of variety amongst the non-human creatures but this is a minor fact in what is otherwise an enjoyable film that fans should like.
While the plot does not hold much in the way of surprises; it does give fans the action and characters they love and does bring some interesting new elements to the franchise as well as the basis for some character growth in future films.
The animation and voice work is first-rate and really captures the look and tone of the series while having a visual style of its own.
The ending clearly seems to be setting up a sequel and I for one cannot wait to see what they have in store next.
4 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Seven years have passed since Frank Miller’s classic Graphic Novel 300 was adapted into a hit film and made a star of the largely unknown Gerard Butler.
The follow up film, “300 Rise of an Empire” is both a sequel and a prequel to the original film as it takes place before and after the events of the first film and involves Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), a general from Athens who is tasked with defeating the invading Persian navy with only a handful of soldiers and ships who years earlier at the Battle of Marathon put the events of the two films in motion with his actions on the battlefield.
The film also chronicles the rise of the mortal turned god Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his brutal right hand Artemesia (Eva Green), who plays a deadly game against the Greeks and Themistocles based on a long standing desire for revenge against the Greeks despite being Greek herself.
While the film is slow getting started as there is a lot of back story and character introductions to chronicle, the film does start off nicely with the bloody battle of Marathon and then sets up several battles along the way.
Lena Headey is the only returning character of note aside from Xeres and she does a good job in her limited time as the Queen of Sparta who must make hard decisions for her people.
The film uses the same graphical style of the previous film and while there is tons of blood and splatter, it is done with CGI and this helps diminish the impact of seeing copious amounts of blood and gore flying through the air during the numerous battles.
The 3D in the film is effective and seeing the embers from the fires float around was a nice touch.
The cast was engaging and entertaining despite being largely unknown and Stapleton does a nice job with the lead as he does not try to recreate the performance of Butler and instead focuses on his own character.
While it plays out largely like it is, a film version of a comic, Zack Snyder who produced the film and wrote the screenplay has done a good job with the source material. Director Noam Murro keeps the action flowing and gives a nice mix of visuals and character to overcome some of the issues with plot and pacing.
In the end, the film is an enjoyable action film and a worthy follow up to the original which sets the stage well for future films.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/07/300-rise-of-an-empire/
The follow up film, “300 Rise of an Empire” is both a sequel and a prequel to the original film as it takes place before and after the events of the first film and involves Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), a general from Athens who is tasked with defeating the invading Persian navy with only a handful of soldiers and ships who years earlier at the Battle of Marathon put the events of the two films in motion with his actions on the battlefield.
The film also chronicles the rise of the mortal turned god Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his brutal right hand Artemesia (Eva Green), who plays a deadly game against the Greeks and Themistocles based on a long standing desire for revenge against the Greeks despite being Greek herself.
While the film is slow getting started as there is a lot of back story and character introductions to chronicle, the film does start off nicely with the bloody battle of Marathon and then sets up several battles along the way.
Lena Headey is the only returning character of note aside from Xeres and she does a good job in her limited time as the Queen of Sparta who must make hard decisions for her people.
The film uses the same graphical style of the previous film and while there is tons of blood and splatter, it is done with CGI and this helps diminish the impact of seeing copious amounts of blood and gore flying through the air during the numerous battles.
The 3D in the film is effective and seeing the embers from the fires float around was a nice touch.
The cast was engaging and entertaining despite being largely unknown and Stapleton does a nice job with the lead as he does not try to recreate the performance of Butler and instead focuses on his own character.
While it plays out largely like it is, a film version of a comic, Zack Snyder who produced the film and wrote the screenplay has done a good job with the source material. Director Noam Murro keeps the action flowing and gives a nice mix of visuals and character to overcome some of the issues with plot and pacing.
In the end, the film is an enjoyable action film and a worthy follow up to the original which sets the stage well for future films.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/07/300-rise-of-an-empire/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
As I have already stated in my review of season one of The Boys, it is a show that I have found compelling to watch without actually liking or thinking it is necessarily very good. The premise was intriguing, and threw up some pretty interesting dramatic conflicts in the first season. But it was obvious from very early on that this show wanted to make the most of its 18 certificate and use gore, violence and shock tactics to really make fans of those things gasp.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Wolf Blood in Books
Jan 31, 2019
Wolf Blood is a fresh, new take on the apocalypse–free of zombies and nuclear fallout. It’s a welcome breath of fresh air in a market that’s already overly saturated with the same tropes, and for that Steve Morris deserves props. That’s not to say that there aren’t issues with Wolf Blood. There are several, actually. It does, however, mean that this is a title worth taking the time to read if you’re sick of the same washed up material.
Professor Wiseman and his three students, Samuel, Leann, and Adam, have tucked themselves away in the Carpathians after a poorly received publication foretelling of a werewolf apocalypse is met with widespread mockery and criticism. His reputation ruined, the Professor and his students continue their research in quiet solitude–until things go wrong. All three students become infected, soon returning to London to bring back the superiority of wolves.
Let’s be honest, this idea is pretty interesting and in execution, Morris does a pretty decent job. I didn’t find any outwardly obvious plot holes, and that’s a plus too. The book is fast-paced, making for an easy and quick read. It isn’t bogged down with too much exposition, either. In fact, it might not have enough in some cases. Fortunately, it doesn’t detract too much from what’s going on.
Also, characters. There are too many characters whose purpose isn’t revealed in this book. Granted it’s the first of a series and they probably have a reason to exist later on down the road, but ultimately I feel it would have been better if those characters were introduced later. Instead we end up with a handful of people we don’t care about, and not enough time to develop feelings for those we do meet.
Morris’s werewolves are an important topic of discussion too. They are somewhere in-between the romanticized version and the truly monstrous. As a fan of gore and horror, I was hoping for purely the latter–especially since it is an apocalypse book. While there is some sappiness to this crew of mangy mutts, much of their desires lean toward the more primal nature of a wolf.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; I devoured it in just over twenty-four hours and, considering all that’s going on in my life, that’s a good thing. Rating wise, I’m stuck between three and four. Considering how much fun I had reading it, I’ve decided to lean toward the higher rating. This is definitely a fun book.
I would like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
Professor Wiseman and his three students, Samuel, Leann, and Adam, have tucked themselves away in the Carpathians after a poorly received publication foretelling of a werewolf apocalypse is met with widespread mockery and criticism. His reputation ruined, the Professor and his students continue their research in quiet solitude–until things go wrong. All three students become infected, soon returning to London to bring back the superiority of wolves.
Let’s be honest, this idea is pretty interesting and in execution, Morris does a pretty decent job. I didn’t find any outwardly obvious plot holes, and that’s a plus too. The book is fast-paced, making for an easy and quick read. It isn’t bogged down with too much exposition, either. In fact, it might not have enough in some cases. Fortunately, it doesn’t detract too much from what’s going on.
Also, characters. There are too many characters whose purpose isn’t revealed in this book. Granted it’s the first of a series and they probably have a reason to exist later on down the road, but ultimately I feel it would have been better if those characters were introduced later. Instead we end up with a handful of people we don’t care about, and not enough time to develop feelings for those we do meet.
Morris’s werewolves are an important topic of discussion too. They are somewhere in-between the romanticized version and the truly monstrous. As a fan of gore and horror, I was hoping for purely the latter–especially since it is an apocalypse book. While there is some sappiness to this crew of mangy mutts, much of their desires lean toward the more primal nature of a wolf.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; I devoured it in just over twenty-four hours and, considering all that’s going on in my life, that’s a good thing. Rating wise, I’m stuck between three and four. Considering how much fun I had reading it, I’ve decided to lean toward the higher rating. This is definitely a fun book.
I would like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
JT (287 KP) rated Let Me In (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
t’s a hard thing remaking or rebooting a classic, whatever you want to call it, you have to make sure of one thing…don’t balls it up! Thankfully director Matt Reeves doesn’t do that, in fact he takes a brilliant original and puts his own spin on it.
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated American Gods - Season 1 in TV
Jan 27, 2019
An intriguing & decent adaptation
I really enjoyed the book and had heard good things about the show, and I’m please to say that for the most part this is a very good adaptation.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.
JT (287 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As what we would describe as the classic monster horror, this remake of the 1941 black and white picture in some way does itself and the original some justice.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.