Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
Ready or Not opens with a gleefully intense and shocking scene. It serves to give us a taste of the kind of twisted games that usually play out within the confines of huge gothic mansion owned by the eccentric Le Domas family, who made their fortune in the board game business. If you've seen the trailer, then you'll know that Ready or Not is basically just Hide and Seek, but with deathly consequences. However, this short, sharp introduction leaves you in no doubt as to just how far the Le Domas family will go in order to win the game.
Cut to a more happier time as Grace (Samara Weaving, niece of Hugo Weaving) is preparing to marry into the Le Domas dynasty. Her husband to be is Alex (Mark O'Brien), estranged son who has now returned to the family home where the ceremony will be taking place. As a foster child, Grace yearns to become part of a more permanent family and is concerned that she won't be accepted by the Le Domas clan, not helped by the cold scowl she gets from a seriously creepy looking Aunt Helene.
We rejoin Grace and Alex later that evening, now married. But Grace discovers that rather than retire to bed with her new husband, they must join the family downstairs and partake in a wedding night tradition which will see her officially becoming a Le Domas - she has to play a game. Wanting nothing more than to fit in with her new in-laws, Grace goes along with it all as patriarch Tony (Henry Czerny) explains how the tradition will play out. The game they must play is selected at random from a box that has been passed down through the generations after it was originally given to the family by mysterious benefactor, Mr. Le Bail. The wife of eldest son Daniel got Chess, the husband of daughter Emilie got Old Maid, so it really is anyone's guess what the mystery game will be! All of the siblings and their spouse's are in attendance for the game and watch on as Grace draws... Hide and Seek, the one game which results in death!
Not realising the seriousness of her choice, Tony explains to Grace that in order to win the game she must remain hidden until dawn, and she laughs it off. An old vinyl hide and seek record begins playing, giving Grace the time to go find a suitable hiding place, and she winds up climbing into a dumb waiter to hide. But, she soon gets bored and decides to go wandering around the huge house. It's not long though until she discovers that the family members have equipped themselves with shotguns, axes and crossbows... and they're not afraid to use them! Turns out, the family believe that if they don’t kill Grace by dawn, a terrible fate will befall them all.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, with a good dose of gore and dark humour thrown in. One minute we're holding our breath as Grace tries to quietly avoid a member of the family, the next we're cutting to the other family members, who are mostly completely incompetent - bickering between themselves or watching a YouTube crash course on how to use a crossbow! Ready or Not manages to juggle the different tones effortlessly, and brilliantly, as Grace goes from terrified scream queen in a pristine white wedding dress, to blood-soaked badass wearing a pair of old converse and brandishing a shotgun. She's the latest in a long line of great female survivors, played to perfection by Samara Weaving. If you liked 2011 movie 'You're Next', then Ready or Not reminded me of that in many ways.
The gothic setting and the suitably wonderful score by Brian Tyler (usually found providing music for MCU movies) all adds to what is a wonderfully short (95 minute), but perfectly paced, completely bonkers thrill ride.
Cut to a more happier time as Grace (Samara Weaving, niece of Hugo Weaving) is preparing to marry into the Le Domas dynasty. Her husband to be is Alex (Mark O'Brien), estranged son who has now returned to the family home where the ceremony will be taking place. As a foster child, Grace yearns to become part of a more permanent family and is concerned that she won't be accepted by the Le Domas clan, not helped by the cold scowl she gets from a seriously creepy looking Aunt Helene.
We rejoin Grace and Alex later that evening, now married. But Grace discovers that rather than retire to bed with her new husband, they must join the family downstairs and partake in a wedding night tradition which will see her officially becoming a Le Domas - she has to play a game. Wanting nothing more than to fit in with her new in-laws, Grace goes along with it all as patriarch Tony (Henry Czerny) explains how the tradition will play out. The game they must play is selected at random from a box that has been passed down through the generations after it was originally given to the family by mysterious benefactor, Mr. Le Bail. The wife of eldest son Daniel got Chess, the husband of daughter Emilie got Old Maid, so it really is anyone's guess what the mystery game will be! All of the siblings and their spouse's are in attendance for the game and watch on as Grace draws... Hide and Seek, the one game which results in death!
Not realising the seriousness of her choice, Tony explains to Grace that in order to win the game she must remain hidden until dawn, and she laughs it off. An old vinyl hide and seek record begins playing, giving Grace the time to go find a suitable hiding place, and she winds up climbing into a dumb waiter to hide. But, she soon gets bored and decides to go wandering around the huge house. It's not long though until she discovers that the family members have equipped themselves with shotguns, axes and crossbows... and they're not afraid to use them! Turns out, the family believe that if they don’t kill Grace by dawn, a terrible fate will befall them all.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, with a good dose of gore and dark humour thrown in. One minute we're holding our breath as Grace tries to quietly avoid a member of the family, the next we're cutting to the other family members, who are mostly completely incompetent - bickering between themselves or watching a YouTube crash course on how to use a crossbow! Ready or Not manages to juggle the different tones effortlessly, and brilliantly, as Grace goes from terrified scream queen in a pristine white wedding dress, to blood-soaked badass wearing a pair of old converse and brandishing a shotgun. She's the latest in a long line of great female survivors, played to perfection by Samara Weaving. If you liked 2011 movie 'You're Next', then Ready or Not reminded me of that in many ways.
The gothic setting and the suitably wonderful score by Brian Tyler (usually found providing music for MCU movies) all adds to what is a wonderfully short (95 minute), but perfectly paced, completely bonkers thrill ride.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Small Spaces (Small Spaces #1) in Books
Jul 29, 2019
I love creepy books, so when I came across Small Spaces by Katherine Arden, it immediately caught my attention. I don't normally read middle grade fiction, but I do make an exception for middle grade horror, and I'm really glad I had the chance to read Small Spaces.
Olivia, or Ollie as she prefers, is in middle school. She loves reading and books, so when she comes across a sobbing lady getting ready to throw a book in a river, she steals it before the woman has a chance to do so. Ollie thinks the book she stole is just a creepy ghost story, but she soon realizes it is anything but fiction! When her class goes on a field trip to a farm, Ollie realizes just how true the book is. When the field trip bus breaks down in the middle of nowhere, Ollie and two friends decided to leave the bus fearing that they may be in even worse danger if they stay on the bus. With the help of her broken watch from her deceased mother, Ollie must be very careful if she wants to return home unscathed.
I did enjoy the plot of Small Spaces. I felt like I was reading a R.L. Stine novel! Katherine Arden did such a fantastic job with this story in keeping it interesting. There were a few times were the story felt a little disjointed with what was going on as it sometimes seemed as if Small Spaces wanted to be more of a ghost story other than what it actually was. However, it was still a great plot! There was one plot twist I didn't see coming which I thought was great considering I'm an adult, and this is a middle grade story. Usually I can figure out the plot twists, but not this time! One thing that got me wondering is how all these 11 and 12 year old kids each had their own cell phone. I know it's not impossible for a whole class of junior high children to have a cell phone, but it just seems improbable. While most of my questions were answered, I was left pondering over the ending as to why more questions weren't asked by the police or the parents. Another question I had, I won't go into detail because of spoilers, but it pertained to the kids and the water. I'll just leave it at that. Although Small Spaces is a series, it can be read as a standalone as there is no cliff hanger ending.
The pacing for Small Spaces starts out a bit slow, but it picks up quickly to a fantastic pace a few chapters in. It stays at a decent pace for the majority of the book until it slows a little bit towards the ending. I wouldn't say the pacing lets the book down in any way though.
I felt all the characters in Small Spaces were written very well especially as the main characters were written as middle schoolers. I felt every character was solid. I didn't really care for Ollie's personality though. For the first half of the book, especially, she came across as a bully. As this book is aimed towards kids that are impressionable, it kind of irked me that the main character was a little mean to others. I liked Brian. I thought he seemed like he'd be a great kid in real life. I admire how he wasn't ashamed to show his emotions at certain times. My favorite character was Coco. Coco had just moved from the city to Ollie's middle school. She seemed really vulnerable, yet Ollie was mean to her a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug and protect Coco. She was such a sweet girl to everyone unlike Ollie. Coco came across as a happy go lucky girl.
Trigger warnings in Small Spaces besides being a scary story include death, minor violence, a minor profanity (one of the characters says hell), ghosts, and bullying.
All in all, Small Spaces is a fantastic scary read despite some minor flaws. It's got such a great spooky plot and characters that feel realistic. I would definitely recommend Small Spaces by Katherine Arden to everyone aged 10+ who love to be spooked! R.L. Stine better watch out; Katherine Arden could give him a run for his money judging by this book! Even though Small Spaces can stand on its own, I will definitely be reading the next book in the Small Spaces series.
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of Small Spaces by Katherine Arden in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Olivia, or Ollie as she prefers, is in middle school. She loves reading and books, so when she comes across a sobbing lady getting ready to throw a book in a river, she steals it before the woman has a chance to do so. Ollie thinks the book she stole is just a creepy ghost story, but she soon realizes it is anything but fiction! When her class goes on a field trip to a farm, Ollie realizes just how true the book is. When the field trip bus breaks down in the middle of nowhere, Ollie and two friends decided to leave the bus fearing that they may be in even worse danger if they stay on the bus. With the help of her broken watch from her deceased mother, Ollie must be very careful if she wants to return home unscathed.
I did enjoy the plot of Small Spaces. I felt like I was reading a R.L. Stine novel! Katherine Arden did such a fantastic job with this story in keeping it interesting. There were a few times were the story felt a little disjointed with what was going on as it sometimes seemed as if Small Spaces wanted to be more of a ghost story other than what it actually was. However, it was still a great plot! There was one plot twist I didn't see coming which I thought was great considering I'm an adult, and this is a middle grade story. Usually I can figure out the plot twists, but not this time! One thing that got me wondering is how all these 11 and 12 year old kids each had their own cell phone. I know it's not impossible for a whole class of junior high children to have a cell phone, but it just seems improbable. While most of my questions were answered, I was left pondering over the ending as to why more questions weren't asked by the police or the parents. Another question I had, I won't go into detail because of spoilers, but it pertained to the kids and the water. I'll just leave it at that. Although Small Spaces is a series, it can be read as a standalone as there is no cliff hanger ending.
The pacing for Small Spaces starts out a bit slow, but it picks up quickly to a fantastic pace a few chapters in. It stays at a decent pace for the majority of the book until it slows a little bit towards the ending. I wouldn't say the pacing lets the book down in any way though.
I felt all the characters in Small Spaces were written very well especially as the main characters were written as middle schoolers. I felt every character was solid. I didn't really care for Ollie's personality though. For the first half of the book, especially, she came across as a bully. As this book is aimed towards kids that are impressionable, it kind of irked me that the main character was a little mean to others. I liked Brian. I thought he seemed like he'd be a great kid in real life. I admire how he wasn't ashamed to show his emotions at certain times. My favorite character was Coco. Coco had just moved from the city to Ollie's middle school. She seemed really vulnerable, yet Ollie was mean to her a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug and protect Coco. She was such a sweet girl to everyone unlike Ollie. Coco came across as a happy go lucky girl.
Trigger warnings in Small Spaces besides being a scary story include death, minor violence, a minor profanity (one of the characters says hell), ghosts, and bullying.
All in all, Small Spaces is a fantastic scary read despite some minor flaws. It's got such a great spooky plot and characters that feel realistic. I would definitely recommend Small Spaces by Katherine Arden to everyone aged 10+ who love to be spooked! R.L. Stine better watch out; Katherine Arden could give him a run for his money judging by this book! Even though Small Spaces can stand on its own, I will definitely be reading the next book in the Small Spaces series.
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of Small Spaces by Katherine Arden in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Before I'd even seen anything beyond the plot and a poster I was confused. It really just felt like the poster was designed to catch people. "Look, we've got these big names! Come and watch it!" I know that's what posters are meant to do, but considering the movie is about these women taking up the reins of their dearly departed I'd have had more respect for a poster that focused on them.
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!