Search
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
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 (968 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
Pretty Amy is a book that I had wanted to read for quite awhile. I was thrilled when I won a copy. However, I was disappointed when it wasn't as good as I had hoped. It's still an alright/good read though.
Amy is a seventeen year old high school senior. On the night of prom, Amy and her two best friends Cassie and Lila get stood up by their dates. They decide to forego prom and end up at the house where Lila's boyfriend lives. Since the boys aren't there, Lila decides to steal a big bag of marijuana from Brian as payback. After smoking some of it and joyriding around the time, the girls are pulled over by the police. They are charged with possession, intent to sell and sale. Amy is facing jail time but can get probation if she'll sign a paper saying it was all Cassie and Lila. Amy doesn't want to turn against her best friends, so does that mean she'll throw herself to the wolves?
The title kind of caught my eye, but after reading this book, I felt as if a better title could've been picked. Pretty Amy is what Amy's bird says throughout the book.
I think the cover is a good choice because it's a photo of what started this whole thing.
The world building is alright. I think the character of Amy makes the world building a little unbelievable, but I'll elaborate on that later. I was never a "bad kid" so I don't really have anything to compare Amy's world to. However, I knew some bad kids, and I imagine their lives would've been like Cassie's, Lila's and Amy's.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but it definitely picked right up probably about 50 pages into the book. This is one of those books I devoured because I loved the writing style and how Burstein was able to captivate an audience.
I enjoyed the whole good girl turned bad plot. I found it interesting with what choices Amy had to make about her life. Amy used to be a good girl, but she felt invisible and just wanted to fit in with someone. She mixes with the wrong crowd, and before she knows it, she's smoking (cigarettes and weed), skipping classes, and getting in trouble at school. The plot deals with self discovery as a theme.
I had a big problem with Amy. I found her to be really, really annoying. In fact, I was going to stop reading the book because of her, but I decided to keep reading. (I'm glad I did because it was a good book). I just didn't find her to be that believable. She threw these temper tantrums that I've never known any senior in high school to throw. She acted more like a spoiled 10 year old than a 17 year old. And while I understand that she was a moody teenager whose future was uncertain, she still came across as being really young as well as annoying. However, I did relate to her with the whole feeling invisible and just plain. I felt and still feel the same way. Ultimately, I was too annoyed with her to really connect, so I found myself not caring if she want to jail. We don't really get to see much of Cassie and Lila past the first few chapters. Cassie didn't feel like a real character either because I felt like the author was trying too hard to make Cassie seem like a bad girl. I was indifferent about Lila although she felt more realistic then Cassie and Amy. Amy's mom seemed to just cry the whole time which I found annoying as well. I don't think anyone cries as much as that woman did! I did like Amy's dad though. I loved how supportive he was of Amy and how helpful he was. I also liked Joe although I wish we would've got to read a bit more about him.
Some of the dialogue did feel forced, especially when it involved swearing. There was so much swearing in that book, and it just felt a bit over the top. However, minus the swearing, I did enjoy some of the snarky comments by Amy the most even if some were a bit immature.
Overall, Pretty Amy by Lisa Burstein was enjoyable to read as strange as it may sound with how annoyed I was with Amy. I don't really know what it was, but I did like this book. I think if Amy had acted more like a 17 year old then a tween, it would've been a lot better.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ (due to language) who are after an interesting contemporary novel.
I'd give Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy #1) by Lisa Burstein a 3.5 out of 5.
Pretty Amy is a book that I had wanted to read for quite awhile. I was thrilled when I won a copy. However, I was disappointed when it wasn't as good as I had hoped. It's still an alright/good read though.
Amy is a seventeen year old high school senior. On the night of prom, Amy and her two best friends Cassie and Lila get stood up by their dates. They decide to forego prom and end up at the house where Lila's boyfriend lives. Since the boys aren't there, Lila decides to steal a big bag of marijuana from Brian as payback. After smoking some of it and joyriding around the time, the girls are pulled over by the police. They are charged with possession, intent to sell and sale. Amy is facing jail time but can get probation if she'll sign a paper saying it was all Cassie and Lila. Amy doesn't want to turn against her best friends, so does that mean she'll throw herself to the wolves?
The title kind of caught my eye, but after reading this book, I felt as if a better title could've been picked. Pretty Amy is what Amy's bird says throughout the book.
I think the cover is a good choice because it's a photo of what started this whole thing.
The world building is alright. I think the character of Amy makes the world building a little unbelievable, but I'll elaborate on that later. I was never a "bad kid" so I don't really have anything to compare Amy's world to. However, I knew some bad kids, and I imagine their lives would've been like Cassie's, Lila's and Amy's.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but it definitely picked right up probably about 50 pages into the book. This is one of those books I devoured because I loved the writing style and how Burstein was able to captivate an audience.
I enjoyed the whole good girl turned bad plot. I found it interesting with what choices Amy had to make about her life. Amy used to be a good girl, but she felt invisible and just wanted to fit in with someone. She mixes with the wrong crowd, and before she knows it, she's smoking (cigarettes and weed), skipping classes, and getting in trouble at school. The plot deals with self discovery as a theme.
I had a big problem with Amy. I found her to be really, really annoying. In fact, I was going to stop reading the book because of her, but I decided to keep reading. (I'm glad I did because it was a good book). I just didn't find her to be that believable. She threw these temper tantrums that I've never known any senior in high school to throw. She acted more like a spoiled 10 year old than a 17 year old. And while I understand that she was a moody teenager whose future was uncertain, she still came across as being really young as well as annoying. However, I did relate to her with the whole feeling invisible and just plain. I felt and still feel the same way. Ultimately, I was too annoyed with her to really connect, so I found myself not caring if she want to jail. We don't really get to see much of Cassie and Lila past the first few chapters. Cassie didn't feel like a real character either because I felt like the author was trying too hard to make Cassie seem like a bad girl. I was indifferent about Lila although she felt more realistic then Cassie and Amy. Amy's mom seemed to just cry the whole time which I found annoying as well. I don't think anyone cries as much as that woman did! I did like Amy's dad though. I loved how supportive he was of Amy and how helpful he was. I also liked Joe although I wish we would've got to read a bit more about him.
Some of the dialogue did feel forced, especially when it involved swearing. There was so much swearing in that book, and it just felt a bit over the top. However, minus the swearing, I did enjoy some of the snarky comments by Amy the most even if some were a bit immature.
Overall, Pretty Amy by Lisa Burstein was enjoyable to read as strange as it may sound with how annoyed I was with Amy. I don't really know what it was, but I did like this book. I think if Amy had acted more like a 17 year old then a tween, it would've been a lot better.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ (due to language) who are after an interesting contemporary novel.
I'd give Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy #1) by Lisa Burstein a 3.5 out of 5.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Batman Gotham Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Batman: Gotham Knight was originally advertised as an animated feature that bridged the gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but it’s more of a Batman in his early stages becoming the legendary crime fighting vigilante he’s known as today. There are six segments in total with each segment having a different production studio.
The first segment is entitled, “Have I Got a Story For You,” and it’s written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and animated by Studio 4°C (Berserk: Golden Age Arc, Mind Game). The segment follows a boy who is waiting for his friends to arrive. Once they do, each of them tells a different story relating to what incredible Batman incident they witnessed that day. Each retelling is farfetched in its own way as this story capitalizes on teenagers stretching the truth and having overactive imaginations. Their day doesn’t seem to be finished though as the fight they all witnessed makes its way to their local hangout; the skate park.
“Crossfire” is written by Greg Rucka (Gotham, Jessica Jones) and animated by Production I.G. (FLCL, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex). This segment focuses on Chris and Anna being a part of Lieutenant Gordon’s MCU (Major Crime Unit). Chris thinks Batman is a vigilante that takes the law into his hands while Anna is still unsure about him and is just thankful that good cops that know how to do their job are actually being respected now that Batman has become part of the picture. After taking a recent Arkham escapee back to the asylum, Chris and Anna soon realize that they’re stuck in the middle of a gang war between Sal Maroni and The Russian.
“Field Test” is written by Jordan Goldberg (Westworld) and animated by Bee Train (.hack//Sign, Blade of the Immortal). Lucius Fox is showing Bruce Wayne some new gadgets. Amongst them is a harness equipped with an electromagnetic pulse strong enough to deflect bullets. Batman decides to test it out with Maroni, The Russian, and his goons. Everything seems to be going well until Batman encounters a glitch.
“In Darkness Dwells” is written by David S. Goyer (the Blade franchise, Man of Steel) and animated by Madhouse (One Punch Man, Death Note). Everyone is hunting Killer Croc. For this story, Croc is a former patient of Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow and one of the reasons he was admitted to Dr. Crane was for his fear of bats.
“Working Through Pain” is written by Brian Azzarello (Batman: The Killing Joke) and animated by Studio 4°C. Batman is injured on what seems like any other night he puts his mask on. His tenacity takes center stage as you witness how often he struggles with nightly injuries. There are also flashbacks to his past that illustrate the difference between exterior and interior pain. There’s a way to put pain in its place and this is how Bruce Wayne found out how.
“Deadshot” is written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and animated by Madhouse. Deadshot has returned to Gotham and has set his sights on Jim Gordon, but he looks to have ulterior motives. You also learn about how Bruce Wayne feels about guns.
Gotham Knight is superbly animated and has an accessible flow to it despite its various stories and alternating casts. The animation is fantastic as everything moves crisply and smoothly. The artistic style may change from story to story, but the voice cast is the same throughout. While each individual story has its own narrative to tell, everything is connected in some way that flows together nicely. This was one of the first times Kevin Conroy returned to voice Batman and his voice has become the iconic Batman voice for anyone who grew up watching Batman: The Animated Series. Hearing Conroy as Batman is like a homecoming in so many ways.
Whether you’re an anime fan, a Batman fan, or you’re looking for something new to catch your eye, Gotham Knight is worthwhile for animation and comic book fans alike. The animation is beautiful and the stories are enticing enough to keep you interested throughout. Kevin Conroy is the real drawing point here, but the rest of the voice cast is solid, as well. The Batman Begins/The Dark Knight connections are mostly hogwash as the animated feature adds nothing to Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe, but is an entertaining way to spend 76-minutes nevertheless.
Batman: Gotham Knight is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is available on Amazon for $7.32 and as a double feature Blu-ray with Batman: Year One for $17.97. The Gotham Knight/Year One Blu-ray is $9.08 on eBay and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $6.99; both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
The first segment is entitled, “Have I Got a Story For You,” and it’s written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and animated by Studio 4°C (Berserk: Golden Age Arc, Mind Game). The segment follows a boy who is waiting for his friends to arrive. Once they do, each of them tells a different story relating to what incredible Batman incident they witnessed that day. Each retelling is farfetched in its own way as this story capitalizes on teenagers stretching the truth and having overactive imaginations. Their day doesn’t seem to be finished though as the fight they all witnessed makes its way to their local hangout; the skate park.
“Crossfire” is written by Greg Rucka (Gotham, Jessica Jones) and animated by Production I.G. (FLCL, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex). This segment focuses on Chris and Anna being a part of Lieutenant Gordon’s MCU (Major Crime Unit). Chris thinks Batman is a vigilante that takes the law into his hands while Anna is still unsure about him and is just thankful that good cops that know how to do their job are actually being respected now that Batman has become part of the picture. After taking a recent Arkham escapee back to the asylum, Chris and Anna soon realize that they’re stuck in the middle of a gang war between Sal Maroni and The Russian.
“Field Test” is written by Jordan Goldberg (Westworld) and animated by Bee Train (.hack//Sign, Blade of the Immortal). Lucius Fox is showing Bruce Wayne some new gadgets. Amongst them is a harness equipped with an electromagnetic pulse strong enough to deflect bullets. Batman decides to test it out with Maroni, The Russian, and his goons. Everything seems to be going well until Batman encounters a glitch.
“In Darkness Dwells” is written by David S. Goyer (the Blade franchise, Man of Steel) and animated by Madhouse (One Punch Man, Death Note). Everyone is hunting Killer Croc. For this story, Croc is a former patient of Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow and one of the reasons he was admitted to Dr. Crane was for his fear of bats.
“Working Through Pain” is written by Brian Azzarello (Batman: The Killing Joke) and animated by Studio 4°C. Batman is injured on what seems like any other night he puts his mask on. His tenacity takes center stage as you witness how often he struggles with nightly injuries. There are also flashbacks to his past that illustrate the difference between exterior and interior pain. There’s a way to put pain in its place and this is how Bruce Wayne found out how.
“Deadshot” is written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and animated by Madhouse. Deadshot has returned to Gotham and has set his sights on Jim Gordon, but he looks to have ulterior motives. You also learn about how Bruce Wayne feels about guns.
Gotham Knight is superbly animated and has an accessible flow to it despite its various stories and alternating casts. The animation is fantastic as everything moves crisply and smoothly. The artistic style may change from story to story, but the voice cast is the same throughout. While each individual story has its own narrative to tell, everything is connected in some way that flows together nicely. This was one of the first times Kevin Conroy returned to voice Batman and his voice has become the iconic Batman voice for anyone who grew up watching Batman: The Animated Series. Hearing Conroy as Batman is like a homecoming in so many ways.
Whether you’re an anime fan, a Batman fan, or you’re looking for something new to catch your eye, Gotham Knight is worthwhile for animation and comic book fans alike. The animation is beautiful and the stories are enticing enough to keep you interested throughout. Kevin Conroy is the real drawing point here, but the rest of the voice cast is solid, as well. The Batman Begins/The Dark Knight connections are mostly hogwash as the animated feature adds nothing to Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe, but is an entertaining way to spend 76-minutes nevertheless.
Batman: Gotham Knight is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is available on Amazon for $7.32 and as a double feature Blu-ray with Batman: Year One for $17.97. The Gotham Knight/Year One Blu-ray is $9.08 on eBay and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $6.99; both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Clerks II (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1994, Writer/Director/Producer Kevin Smith emerged as a talented filmmaker to watch with his independent film Clerks The film was a no holds barred look at the lives of two desk clerks, who toil away behind the counters of a video and convince store.
The film was made on a tight budget with a cast of unknowns who discussed all manner of issues from life, love, and beyond in very graphic and outlandish terms as they go through a very long day and evening on the job.
The film went on to be a darling at Sundance and paved the way from Kevin Smith to do a series of films which featured lovable yet realistic characters trying to understand life, and get by in a world where they do not always seem to fit. Of course the films always had Smith’s trademark ability to discuss topics in new and unique ways that blended raunchy moments with inspired dialogue and genuine emotions.
A few years back I interviewed Kevin Smith in support of his film Jersey Girl and it seemed that he was on the fast track to do films such as The Green Hornet and Fletch Lives. Despite the series of frustrations due to reported studio conflicts over his Superman Lives script, it seemed that Kevin was moving towards larger budget studio films.
Fate can be a funny thing, especially in Hollywood, and while preparing the 10th anniversary DVD edition of Clerks as well as the work on the short-lived Clerks animated series, Smith reportedly became inspired as to what the characters from his breakout film had become ten years further on.
Despite some delays caused by the departure of the Weinstein brothers from Miramax and the reluctance of one of the principal cast members, who was concerned that they would not be able to recapture the magic of the first film, “Clerks II” has arrived and is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen.
The stars of the first film Dante (Brian O’Halloran), and Randal (Jeff Anderson), now find themselves working at a fast food store called Moobys, and as usual, Randal never finds a shortage of bizarre and outrageous topics to impart his wisdom and theories to a usual shocked Dante. It is learned that Dante is about to work his last shift, as in the morning he is moving to Florida from his New Jersey home, in order to get married and start a new career as a manager at a business owned by his future father in law.
Dante also must contend with his friendship with his manager Becky (Rosario Dawson), who wants to make sure that he is moving and getting married for the right reasons and not because it is expected of him.
Of course there are no shortage of characters in the film who add to the merriment, from the customers, to an employee named Elias (Trevor Fehrman), whose mild mannered ways and bizarre obsession with Lord of the Rings makes him a constant foil for the ever irascible Randal, who never loses interest in finding new ways to give Elias a hard time.
Then there are series favorites Jay and Silent Bob, (Jason: Mewes), and (Kevin Smith). The two slackers and drug dealers have now cleaned up their act. They still sell drugs; they just no longer use them. Jay is also prone to spouting his theories on religion to his customers, as he attempts to pass the faith while passing pot.
The duo feature throughout the film and offer some of the funniest moments in the film including a hilarious parody of The Silence of the Lambs.
As the day and evening plays out, one manner of hilarious and outrageous event after another occurs, which forces Dante and Randal to evaluate their lives, as well as what truly being happy and successful means.
While some may say this film is just a collection of crude humor that would be underscoring the true triumph of the film. Smith once again shows that he can portray flawed but realistic characters with surprising realism and charm. The characters know who they are, and make no apologies for being what society would call rough around the edges or failures they are being true to themselves and it is their frank and blunt ways of communicating that make them real and endear them to the audience.
They face the same issues that most of us have to face in life when we examine the paths we take, as well as the decisions we make and the resulting consequences which underscores the ultimate fact that one must be true to themselves.
A true classic and easily the best film Kevin Smith has ever done do not miss this film.
The film was made on a tight budget with a cast of unknowns who discussed all manner of issues from life, love, and beyond in very graphic and outlandish terms as they go through a very long day and evening on the job.
The film went on to be a darling at Sundance and paved the way from Kevin Smith to do a series of films which featured lovable yet realistic characters trying to understand life, and get by in a world where they do not always seem to fit. Of course the films always had Smith’s trademark ability to discuss topics in new and unique ways that blended raunchy moments with inspired dialogue and genuine emotions.
A few years back I interviewed Kevin Smith in support of his film Jersey Girl and it seemed that he was on the fast track to do films such as The Green Hornet and Fletch Lives. Despite the series of frustrations due to reported studio conflicts over his Superman Lives script, it seemed that Kevin was moving towards larger budget studio films.
Fate can be a funny thing, especially in Hollywood, and while preparing the 10th anniversary DVD edition of Clerks as well as the work on the short-lived Clerks animated series, Smith reportedly became inspired as to what the characters from his breakout film had become ten years further on.
Despite some delays caused by the departure of the Weinstein brothers from Miramax and the reluctance of one of the principal cast members, who was concerned that they would not be able to recapture the magic of the first film, “Clerks II” has arrived and is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen.
The stars of the first film Dante (Brian O’Halloran), and Randal (Jeff Anderson), now find themselves working at a fast food store called Moobys, and as usual, Randal never finds a shortage of bizarre and outrageous topics to impart his wisdom and theories to a usual shocked Dante. It is learned that Dante is about to work his last shift, as in the morning he is moving to Florida from his New Jersey home, in order to get married and start a new career as a manager at a business owned by his future father in law.
Dante also must contend with his friendship with his manager Becky (Rosario Dawson), who wants to make sure that he is moving and getting married for the right reasons and not because it is expected of him.
Of course there are no shortage of characters in the film who add to the merriment, from the customers, to an employee named Elias (Trevor Fehrman), whose mild mannered ways and bizarre obsession with Lord of the Rings makes him a constant foil for the ever irascible Randal, who never loses interest in finding new ways to give Elias a hard time.
Then there are series favorites Jay and Silent Bob, (Jason: Mewes), and (Kevin Smith). The two slackers and drug dealers have now cleaned up their act. They still sell drugs; they just no longer use them. Jay is also prone to spouting his theories on religion to his customers, as he attempts to pass the faith while passing pot.
The duo feature throughout the film and offer some of the funniest moments in the film including a hilarious parody of The Silence of the Lambs.
As the day and evening plays out, one manner of hilarious and outrageous event after another occurs, which forces Dante and Randal to evaluate their lives, as well as what truly being happy and successful means.
While some may say this film is just a collection of crude humor that would be underscoring the true triumph of the film. Smith once again shows that he can portray flawed but realistic characters with surprising realism and charm. The characters know who they are, and make no apologies for being what society would call rough around the edges or failures they are being true to themselves and it is their frank and blunt ways of communicating that make them real and endear them to the audience.
They face the same issues that most of us have to face in life when we examine the paths we take, as well as the decisions we make and the resulting consequences which underscores the ultimate fact that one must be true to themselves.
A true classic and easily the best film Kevin Smith has ever done do not miss this film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 3, 2022
The late ’90s and early 2000s was filled with epic, over-the-top disaster movies focusing on all methods of world-ending cataclysmic events. Alien invasions as seen in Independence Day, set on destroying all humans and snatching our planet’s remaining resources, global warming resulting in floods and freezing temperatures, even threats of asteroids crashing into the earth. While many of these movies were ridiculous and epic at times, they all focused on a singular threat facing humankind and a group of ordinary (yet somehow extraordinary) people to save the planet and ourselves. Moonfall attempts to take another stab at the formula that made these movies famous (even infamous) resulting in some mixed and head-scratching results.
Moonfall, directed by Roland Emmerich, stars Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson as a pair of NASA astronauts that are attacked by a strange mechanical swarm while performing a routine satellite repair mission from the space shuttle Endeavor in the mid-1990s. The attack resulted in the death of one of the crew members and severely damaged the shuttle. Brian Harper (Wilson) and Jo Fowler (Berry) successfully return the shuttle to earth only to see Harper take the fall for the death of his crewman and the fall guy for a coverup to prevent the citizens of earth from truly understanding what they encountered.
Fast forward to current day and a “crazy” conspiracy theorist K.C Houseman, believing the moon to be a megastructure built by aliens, discovers that the moon’s orbit is rapidly eroding. He attempts to reach out to NASA and after several unsuccessful attempts releases his findings via social media. The top minds at NASA confirm what has been identified and estimate that they have only three weeks to execute a plan to prevent the moon from crashing into the earth destroying everything and everyone. The race for the survival of the planet is quickly on which will focus on not only the NASA “team”, but each of their family members.
Let me get this out of the way first, I personally loved many of Roland Emmerich’s wildly outlandish films. I thought Independence Day was fantastic, and even though many found The Day After Tomorrow a bit to preachy and ridiculous, I still found it entertaining for what it was. So, I was excited going into Moonfall. I was ready for a fun movie that I felt would be a mindless, fun adventure which was something I had really missed in many of the movies that had come out over the past year or two. Unfortunately, my aspirations (and even the low bar I had set my expectations for) would be quickly dashed.
Moonfall is a movie that struggles throughout to find an identity. I found myself instantly comparing several of Emmerich’s films during its roughly two-hour run time. At times its reminiscent of Independence Day, with its alien destruction of earth storyline, and then quickly jumps to a disaster film about the moon crashing into the earth. It’s as though Emmerich took pages of several of his previous films and cobbled them together into some sort of Frankenstein’s monster. There are so many plots and subplots going on that you never truly know what the main threat is. It touches on everything from the birth of humanity to the overly aggressive military, to the dumbing down of NASA all at the same time. With the exception of our heroes (and of course their entire families, because why not), everyone else is just resigned to the fact that nothing can be done. Riots of course breakout, the military is quick to decide to nuke the moon is somehow going to save the planet, and no level of crazy plan is off the table.
I’m happy to forgive an outrageous plot if the actors are able to pull it off with some semblance of believability. I know none of the actions have any real-world chance of success, and I can forgive plot holes for the sake of entertainment. Unfortunately, the acting is where Moonfall really lets the audience down. Each character is portrayed in a completely over-the-top fashion, it reminded me of watching a movie that is intentionally attempting to spoof another movie. The emotions are not believable, and the lines being delivered are literally derived from popular lines of other movies. Bonus points if you can identify which movie they are from as the film progresses. The saddest part is, this movie is trying to take itself seriously, it’s not intentionally being campy, for the sake of being campy. I think the character portrayals could have been forgiven if that was the case, but it’s clearly not. It’s actually a distraction when the story of a film is already struggling to deliver.
The movie effects go from truly spectacular, to overly CGI-infused. Ironically the space shots, which you think would be the hardest to pull off are some of its best, yet the vehicle driving scenes through the snow-covered townscape are some of the worst. It’s almost as though they spent so much of their budget on the space scenes that they had no money for the earth shots, which would be fine if they didn’t literally look so bad. It’s jarring going from one area to another and makes for a very inconsistent experience the entire time.
I believe one of the biggest tragedies of the film however is the absolutely blatant product placement. Yes, I understand that product placement has sadly been a staple in the film industry since the dawn of time. Yes, I understand that when someone is using a MacBook on-screen or riding a Peloton, it’s there for a reason. Moonfall however takes this to a Hallmark movie level. If you watch a Hallmark movie sponsored by Folgers for example, there will be clear shots of the Folgers coffee on the counter, with the cast explaining how much they love Folgers’s coffee, Moonfall utilizes this very trope. Kaspersky Anti-Virus is plastered on everything, even the Space Shuttle is protected with Kaspersky Anti-virus (which some might argue has other implications, but I won’t go there), and while avoiding looters driving through the snow-packed roads, do we really need the character to explain the need for the off-road settings on their Lexus? Talking about it is one thing, but do we really need to see the dial up-close and personal? It quickly takes you from the scene to a Lexus Christmas commercial and back again.
Sadly, Moonfall is a very disappointing film. If it were released in 1998 maybe it would be a super hit and I’d feel differently about it, but the industry has moved on since then. I had gone in knowing the film wouldn’t be realistic, but I was hoping it would at least be a nice escape from what is going on in the world today. As I have stated before, I’m a huge fan of Emmerich’s films, and while Moonfall may not be his absolute worst, it is one that will quickly be forgotten. I don’t even know if it’s one I’d revisit if it premiered on HBO or Showtime. As excited as I was, I just wouldn’t be able to recommend it.
Moonfall, directed by Roland Emmerich, stars Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson as a pair of NASA astronauts that are attacked by a strange mechanical swarm while performing a routine satellite repair mission from the space shuttle Endeavor in the mid-1990s. The attack resulted in the death of one of the crew members and severely damaged the shuttle. Brian Harper (Wilson) and Jo Fowler (Berry) successfully return the shuttle to earth only to see Harper take the fall for the death of his crewman and the fall guy for a coverup to prevent the citizens of earth from truly understanding what they encountered.
Fast forward to current day and a “crazy” conspiracy theorist K.C Houseman, believing the moon to be a megastructure built by aliens, discovers that the moon’s orbit is rapidly eroding. He attempts to reach out to NASA and after several unsuccessful attempts releases his findings via social media. The top minds at NASA confirm what has been identified and estimate that they have only three weeks to execute a plan to prevent the moon from crashing into the earth destroying everything and everyone. The race for the survival of the planet is quickly on which will focus on not only the NASA “team”, but each of their family members.
Let me get this out of the way first, I personally loved many of Roland Emmerich’s wildly outlandish films. I thought Independence Day was fantastic, and even though many found The Day After Tomorrow a bit to preachy and ridiculous, I still found it entertaining for what it was. So, I was excited going into Moonfall. I was ready for a fun movie that I felt would be a mindless, fun adventure which was something I had really missed in many of the movies that had come out over the past year or two. Unfortunately, my aspirations (and even the low bar I had set my expectations for) would be quickly dashed.
Moonfall is a movie that struggles throughout to find an identity. I found myself instantly comparing several of Emmerich’s films during its roughly two-hour run time. At times its reminiscent of Independence Day, with its alien destruction of earth storyline, and then quickly jumps to a disaster film about the moon crashing into the earth. It’s as though Emmerich took pages of several of his previous films and cobbled them together into some sort of Frankenstein’s monster. There are so many plots and subplots going on that you never truly know what the main threat is. It touches on everything from the birth of humanity to the overly aggressive military, to the dumbing down of NASA all at the same time. With the exception of our heroes (and of course their entire families, because why not), everyone else is just resigned to the fact that nothing can be done. Riots of course breakout, the military is quick to decide to nuke the moon is somehow going to save the planet, and no level of crazy plan is off the table.
I’m happy to forgive an outrageous plot if the actors are able to pull it off with some semblance of believability. I know none of the actions have any real-world chance of success, and I can forgive plot holes for the sake of entertainment. Unfortunately, the acting is where Moonfall really lets the audience down. Each character is portrayed in a completely over-the-top fashion, it reminded me of watching a movie that is intentionally attempting to spoof another movie. The emotions are not believable, and the lines being delivered are literally derived from popular lines of other movies. Bonus points if you can identify which movie they are from as the film progresses. The saddest part is, this movie is trying to take itself seriously, it’s not intentionally being campy, for the sake of being campy. I think the character portrayals could have been forgiven if that was the case, but it’s clearly not. It’s actually a distraction when the story of a film is already struggling to deliver.
The movie effects go from truly spectacular, to overly CGI-infused. Ironically the space shots, which you think would be the hardest to pull off are some of its best, yet the vehicle driving scenes through the snow-covered townscape are some of the worst. It’s almost as though they spent so much of their budget on the space scenes that they had no money for the earth shots, which would be fine if they didn’t literally look so bad. It’s jarring going from one area to another and makes for a very inconsistent experience the entire time.
I believe one of the biggest tragedies of the film however is the absolutely blatant product placement. Yes, I understand that product placement has sadly been a staple in the film industry since the dawn of time. Yes, I understand that when someone is using a MacBook on-screen or riding a Peloton, it’s there for a reason. Moonfall however takes this to a Hallmark movie level. If you watch a Hallmark movie sponsored by Folgers for example, there will be clear shots of the Folgers coffee on the counter, with the cast explaining how much they love Folgers’s coffee, Moonfall utilizes this very trope. Kaspersky Anti-Virus is plastered on everything, even the Space Shuttle is protected with Kaspersky Anti-virus (which some might argue has other implications, but I won’t go there), and while avoiding looters driving through the snow-packed roads, do we really need the character to explain the need for the off-road settings on their Lexus? Talking about it is one thing, but do we really need to see the dial up-close and personal? It quickly takes you from the scene to a Lexus Christmas commercial and back again.
Sadly, Moonfall is a very disappointing film. If it were released in 1998 maybe it would be a super hit and I’d feel differently about it, but the industry has moved on since then. I had gone in knowing the film wouldn’t be realistic, but I was hoping it would at least be a nice escape from what is going on in the world today. As I have stated before, I’m a huge fan of Emmerich’s films, and while Moonfall may not be his absolute worst, it is one that will quickly be forgotten. I don’t even know if it’s one I’d revisit if it premiered on HBO or Showtime. As excited as I was, I just wouldn’t be able to recommend it.
Rest by Charlotte Gainsbourg
7.0
Rate It
Album Watch
Sometimes it takes a personal tragedy to catalyse an artist’s practise, a crack in everything, to...
Pop