Search
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Come. It is time to keep your appointment with the Wicker Man.
Though we never even lay eyes on it until the final few moments of the film, the Wicker Man, both as pagan image and classic horror flick, has become an icon of the genre.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Killing for Company: Case of Dennis Nilsen in Books
May 19, 2021
64 of 250
Book
Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen
By Brian Masters
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
__________________
Dennis Nilsen, who died in May 2018, admitted to killing at least 15 people before his arrest in 1983. This ground-breaking criminal study of his killings was written with Nilsen's full cooperation, resulting in a fascinating - and horrifying - portrait of the man who worshipped death.
In February 1983, residents of Muswell Hill had been plagued by blocked drains. When a plumber was called to investigate, he discovered a large blockage of biological material. To his horror, it appeared to be formed of human flesh and bones.
The next day, local resident Dennis Nilsen was arrested.
'Are we talking about one body or two?' a detective asked. Nilsen replied 'Fifteen or sixteen, since 1978. I'll tell you everything.'
Within days he had confessed to fifteen gruesome murders over a period of four years. His victims, mostly young gay men at a time when society cared little for them, had been overlooked. Killing for Company is a unique study of a murderer's mind, essential reading for true crime aficionados.
__________________
This is a seriously hard book to read and review! I grew up loving true crimes and British serial killers and a bit later American serial killers and although I knew this case as I’d read lots about it growing up I found this book hard going, not because it was poorly written but by the content and knowing Nilsen had a lot to say to Masters. I have read Masters book on Jeffery Dahmer and it was a decent retelling but to me it always seemed so far away! This however was in the UK and only 100+ miles down the motorway, he was in the army the same time as my dad and the fact he on paper seemed so bloody normal! He held a steady job and campaigned via the union for people under discrimination, he loved pets he didn’t have all the common markers as your typical serial killer! It’s only when he was on remand you start seeing how mentally ill he really was! It’s always hard to say you enjoy these types of books I tend to find them fascinating not enjoyable this one really hit home I cried and felt physically sick at several points. I want to know how it can suddenly change from being the person he was before the first murder to that monster ( the only word to describe him). Reading his reactions to how one victims parents would hopefully forgive him is chilling! Also the illustrations at the end of the book are just shocking! Worth a read and I would recommend but this left me asking so many questions!
Book
Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen
By Brian Masters
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
__________________
Dennis Nilsen, who died in May 2018, admitted to killing at least 15 people before his arrest in 1983. This ground-breaking criminal study of his killings was written with Nilsen's full cooperation, resulting in a fascinating - and horrifying - portrait of the man who worshipped death.
In February 1983, residents of Muswell Hill had been plagued by blocked drains. When a plumber was called to investigate, he discovered a large blockage of biological material. To his horror, it appeared to be formed of human flesh and bones.
The next day, local resident Dennis Nilsen was arrested.
'Are we talking about one body or two?' a detective asked. Nilsen replied 'Fifteen or sixteen, since 1978. I'll tell you everything.'
Within days he had confessed to fifteen gruesome murders over a period of four years. His victims, mostly young gay men at a time when society cared little for them, had been overlooked. Killing for Company is a unique study of a murderer's mind, essential reading for true crime aficionados.
__________________
This is a seriously hard book to read and review! I grew up loving true crimes and British serial killers and a bit later American serial killers and although I knew this case as I’d read lots about it growing up I found this book hard going, not because it was poorly written but by the content and knowing Nilsen had a lot to say to Masters. I have read Masters book on Jeffery Dahmer and it was a decent retelling but to me it always seemed so far away! This however was in the UK and only 100+ miles down the motorway, he was in the army the same time as my dad and the fact he on paper seemed so bloody normal! He held a steady job and campaigned via the union for people under discrimination, he loved pets he didn’t have all the common markers as your typical serial killer! It’s only when he was on remand you start seeing how mentally ill he really was! It’s always hard to say you enjoy these types of books I tend to find them fascinating not enjoyable this one really hit home I cried and felt physically sick at several points. I want to know how it can suddenly change from being the person he was before the first murder to that monster ( the only word to describe him). Reading his reactions to how one victims parents would hopefully forgive him is chilling! Also the illustrations at the end of the book are just shocking! Worth a read and I would recommend but this left me asking so many questions!
Kyera (8 KP) rated Stalking Jack the Ripper in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Stalking Jack the Ripper is a fascinating, fictional take on the reign of terror that gripped London in the late 1800's. The story is told through the eyes of a teen girl, Audrey Rose, who is doing her best to study under her uncle's tutelage - as a forensic scientist. She is drawn into the murders, even though her family and society does not agree with her inclusion in the affair as it is not right for ladies to be interested in such things.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the recent influx of the walking dead at your local multiplex, it would be easy to dismiss the British film “Shaun of the Dead” as just another cheap zombie film. While few will mistake “Shaun” as a landmark in cinematic history, but despite its flaws, there are a few funny moments on the film.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death in Books
Jul 27, 2017
A unique series of crime
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads
In 2014, ITV broadcasted the first episode of Grantchester, a drama series based on books by British novelist, James Runcie. Although written during the twenty-first century, the story is set in the 1950s in a village on the outskirts of Cambridge. Sidney Chambers, a young Canon in charge of the Church of St Andrew and Mary, is a polite and friendly character who, despite his reluctance, ends up acting as a detective in a variety of crimes.
Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is the first book of six in The Grantchester Mysteries. Split into six individual baffling cases, the background story of Sidney’s private life continues to develop throughout. Each crime is committed and swiftly solved by the Canon and his friend, Inspector Geordie Keating, although it is Sidney who ultimately resolves the case.
Murder, jewellery theft and art forgery and just some of the felonies Sidney grudgingly gets involved with. In fact, unresolved crimes tend to land in his lap rather than offering his assistance willingly. Up at dawn to work on sermons before rushing off to capture criminals, Sidney is never off duty.
A vicar may seem like an unlikely candidate for a detective, however, people tend to open up to him and unintentionally reveal delitescent information. Listening to suspects and witnesses without pre-judgement allows Sidney to think things through carefully rather than jumping to conclusions. From the moment the crime is committed right up until the story’s denouement, Sidney passionately does everything he can to make sure the correct culprit is discovered.
What makes this series different from other crime novels is the focus on Sidney Chambers’ own life. James Runcie emphasises the loneliness of a bachelor living in a vicarage with only a curate and crotchety housekeeper for company. Readers are drawn into Sidney’s stories and hold onto the hope that his dalliances with the beautiful Amanda turn out to be something more concrete.
Those who have watched the ITV series will be familiar with the stories in this book because the producer has stuck to the exact storyline, not missing a single thing out or adding anything extra. The fact that there were only two years between publishing and screen production goes to show how well written and thought out these stories are. Unlike famous detective novels such as Sherlock Holmes or those by Agatha Christie, The Grantchester Mysteries are not set at the time of writing, so, although they are historically accurate, the prose is suitable for present day readers.
Each story is quick to read and is easy going, making it a relaxing and enjoyable book. It is not a thriller or horror, although some of the crimes are quite terrible. Instead, it is entertaining and often humorous. It is suitable for crime fiction fans as well as those new to the genre.
Regardless of whether you have watched the television series or not, Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is a delight to read. Of course, ITV has given away all the endings, but it is a different experience to read it in print rather than seeing it acted out on screen. Featuring the face of James Norton on the cover so as to work as a TV tie-in, the series will be easy to spot in prime position on bookshelves both in shops and personal collections.
In 2014, ITV broadcasted the first episode of Grantchester, a drama series based on books by British novelist, James Runcie. Although written during the twenty-first century, the story is set in the 1950s in a village on the outskirts of Cambridge. Sidney Chambers, a young Canon in charge of the Church of St Andrew and Mary, is a polite and friendly character who, despite his reluctance, ends up acting as a detective in a variety of crimes.
Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is the first book of six in The Grantchester Mysteries. Split into six individual baffling cases, the background story of Sidney’s private life continues to develop throughout. Each crime is committed and swiftly solved by the Canon and his friend, Inspector Geordie Keating, although it is Sidney who ultimately resolves the case.
Murder, jewellery theft and art forgery and just some of the felonies Sidney grudgingly gets involved with. In fact, unresolved crimes tend to land in his lap rather than offering his assistance willingly. Up at dawn to work on sermons before rushing off to capture criminals, Sidney is never off duty.
A vicar may seem like an unlikely candidate for a detective, however, people tend to open up to him and unintentionally reveal delitescent information. Listening to suspects and witnesses without pre-judgement allows Sidney to think things through carefully rather than jumping to conclusions. From the moment the crime is committed right up until the story’s denouement, Sidney passionately does everything he can to make sure the correct culprit is discovered.
What makes this series different from other crime novels is the focus on Sidney Chambers’ own life. James Runcie emphasises the loneliness of a bachelor living in a vicarage with only a curate and crotchety housekeeper for company. Readers are drawn into Sidney’s stories and hold onto the hope that his dalliances with the beautiful Amanda turn out to be something more concrete.
Those who have watched the ITV series will be familiar with the stories in this book because the producer has stuck to the exact storyline, not missing a single thing out or adding anything extra. The fact that there were only two years between publishing and screen production goes to show how well written and thought out these stories are. Unlike famous detective novels such as Sherlock Holmes or those by Agatha Christie, The Grantchester Mysteries are not set at the time of writing, so, although they are historically accurate, the prose is suitable for present day readers.
Each story is quick to read and is easy going, making it a relaxing and enjoyable book. It is not a thriller or horror, although some of the crimes are quite terrible. Instead, it is entertaining and often humorous. It is suitable for crime fiction fans as well as those new to the genre.
Regardless of whether you have watched the television series or not, Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is a delight to read. Of course, ITV has given away all the endings, but it is a different experience to read it in print rather than seeing it acted out on screen. Featuring the face of James Norton on the cover so as to work as a TV tie-in, the series will be easy to spot in prime position on bookshelves both in shops and personal collections.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Cute Little Buggers (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
What the hell exactly did I just watch? Now where will I start with Cute Little Buggers, apart from fact that its the coolest movie title I have seen in a long time.
Cute Little Buggers… Hmmmmm
Cute Little Buggers…
Right okay. Let me start by saying that there is a movie here, A pretty decent one at that. When this movie knows exactly what it is and can be, it is great (a guilty pleasure if you will) when this movie shoots for the stars and trys to be what it wants to be it falls just short for me, however if there is one thing I love and can get behind, its when a director and his crew do what they can with what they have.
Let’s crack on with the pitch… We open up this very, very, very British horror movie in a small town in the south of England that is full of your typical small town England movie characters. Characters like the put upon farmer whose son left town to make it big and for the purposes of story-line has returned this very day. Then we have said prodigal sons old flame who is with the local village asshole now but the candle still burns bright. Local law enforcement, yes you guessed it, as dumb as a box of rocks. Then of course all your regular locals. One other thing, everyone seems to be a bit of a sexual deviant. We are about to spend a day and night with these crazy madcap zany characters as Aliens (Yes I said Aliens) have come to town and are going to use Rabbits (Yes I said Rabbits) to infiltrate and kidnap the women of earth… Oh shit nearly forgot heres the trailer…
I know right the movie is as mental as this trailer looks. I was completely sold for the first half of this movie, Director Tony Jopia was taking his time to build up these characters and every member of the cast knew what kind of flick they were making (a sort of crossover between Hot Fuzz and Critters) so while you could see they were having a bit of fun it also helped the chemistry flow. My god did the movie need that chemistry so we could up the laugh-ability and like-ability factor because on an estimated budget of 25k, the digital on the scares (Tentacle Bunny Things) were pretty laughable. Now as I said I give credit to any director who goes out and makes his passion so I don’t blame Jopia for one second, it was a budget thing and he absolutely made up for it everywhere else by casting well and having a pretty solid script with some cracking one liners. Just the effects left me feeling MEH. We just wont mention the Alien cut scenes on this review.
For me this is a recommend but its a pretty weak one as you may have guessed. That cast all play there parts and they do play them well on just the other side of bonkers and in some cases crazy beautiful. Tony Jopia as a director definitely has something, I dunno maybe with a bit more of a budget but I will say again there is a movie here.
Cute Little Buggers… Hmmmmm
Cute Little Buggers…
Right okay. Let me start by saying that there is a movie here, A pretty decent one at that. When this movie knows exactly what it is and can be, it is great (a guilty pleasure if you will) when this movie shoots for the stars and trys to be what it wants to be it falls just short for me, however if there is one thing I love and can get behind, its when a director and his crew do what they can with what they have.
Let’s crack on with the pitch… We open up this very, very, very British horror movie in a small town in the south of England that is full of your typical small town England movie characters. Characters like the put upon farmer whose son left town to make it big and for the purposes of story-line has returned this very day. Then we have said prodigal sons old flame who is with the local village asshole now but the candle still burns bright. Local law enforcement, yes you guessed it, as dumb as a box of rocks. Then of course all your regular locals. One other thing, everyone seems to be a bit of a sexual deviant. We are about to spend a day and night with these crazy madcap zany characters as Aliens (Yes I said Aliens) have come to town and are going to use Rabbits (Yes I said Rabbits) to infiltrate and kidnap the women of earth… Oh shit nearly forgot heres the trailer…
I know right the movie is as mental as this trailer looks. I was completely sold for the first half of this movie, Director Tony Jopia was taking his time to build up these characters and every member of the cast knew what kind of flick they were making (a sort of crossover between Hot Fuzz and Critters) so while you could see they were having a bit of fun it also helped the chemistry flow. My god did the movie need that chemistry so we could up the laugh-ability and like-ability factor because on an estimated budget of 25k, the digital on the scares (Tentacle Bunny Things) were pretty laughable. Now as I said I give credit to any director who goes out and makes his passion so I don’t blame Jopia for one second, it was a budget thing and he absolutely made up for it everywhere else by casting well and having a pretty solid script with some cracking one liners. Just the effects left me feeling MEH. We just wont mention the Alien cut scenes on this review.
For me this is a recommend but its a pretty weak one as you may have guessed. That cast all play there parts and they do play them well on just the other side of bonkers and in some cases crazy beautiful. Tony Jopia as a director definitely has something, I dunno maybe with a bit more of a budget but I will say again there is a movie here.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020 (Updated Dec 26, 2020)
Zombie hilarity
Film #8 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Shaun of the Dead
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Downfall (Der Untergang) (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
The true story of the last days of NAZI Germany, focusing on Hitler and his cohorts as they sought refuge on his Berlin Bunker and is chronicled here with such honesty.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Andy K (10821 KP) Feb 18, 2019