Search
Search results
Carl Munden (6 KP) rated Head of the family (1996) in Movies
Jun 18, 2018
Upset the head and you’re dead
A Charles band movie that actually isn’t too bad. The head of the family is literally that, a giant head on a tiny body and the rest of his siblings are just as odd. I’m a sucker for these sort of films, it’s got full on weirdness, mixed in with a dose of nudity and a special Joan of arc scene. Who wants more from a movie
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated The Blues Brothers (1980) in Movies
Jan 7, 2018
EPIC MY FAVORITE MOVIE OF ALL TIME
Brought to life from Saturady Night Live the Blues Brothers Joliet Jake (Belushi) and Elwood (Aykroyd) were in a music band. The opening shows Jake getting of out a 3 yr stint a joliet prison and begin thier journey together rebuilding thier lives. They are tasked with getting money to help the orphanage that they grew up in and after a stop off at a mass at a local church they belive they are on "A Mission from God" and they must do this with out fail. They relaize the only way this is gonna be accomplished is by getting thier band back together and off begins a wild ride of action,fun and music. Cameos from Carrie Fisher (RIP) Cab Calloway (RIP) John Candy (RIP) Ray Charles (RIP) and other greats makes this movie all the more fun. The movie has two fantastic fun car chase scenes one of which is through a mall. I could go on and on about this movie but then why watch it if I tell you everything. Watch and enjoy a laugh filled fun ride
Madbatdan82 (341 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019
Based on the truth, lies and what actually happened.
I don't pretend to be a massive fan of black metal but I know who Mayhem and Bazurm are and I know of Norwegian Black Metal so when I saw this film advertised I was very interested. The story of Norweigan black metal is that of murder, suicide, arson, corpse desecration, possible cannibalism and a massive middle finger to normal society so I was expecting pure shocking filth. Unfortunately I was left very disappointed. The film focuses on Euronimus, founder and guitarist of the band Mayhem and tells his story and his relationships particularly that with lead singer Dead and Buzurm founder and one time Mayhem bassist Varg Vikennes. Its shot very well and looks good and the soundtrack is great. Theres one particularly nasty murder scene but other than that its a mess. It just doesn't know what tone to take and makes Euronimus and Vikennes look stupid. One minute they're intimidating the next they look like idiots. So when events happen you just don't really care what happens to them. Varg Vikennes has been likened to the Norwegian Charles Manson and should be the focus of this film but instead is portrayed as a bumbling fanboy rather than the pure psychopath he is. The only character that I really clicked with and cared about was Dead and his arc was really good. Basically this film is a missed opportunity to tell a story that should be genuinely shocking. Black Metal was suppose to repulse conventional society but this film repulses in another way.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Jan 30, 2020 (Updated Jan 30, 2020)
Pride and Prejudice. Zombies. That's it pretty much!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beetlejuice (1988) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm really enjoying the classic movie re-releases at Cineworld. I've been along to several in the last year and enjoyed every one of them, so when Beetlejuice came up in the listings it was a must see for me as I loved this from the very first time I saw it.
With the other releases I didn't have much to worry about, they were either brand new to me or I'd never seen them the whole way through so it was going to be a new experience... but this time... could I be risking those great memories? While it did run through my head while I waited for the film to start I wasn't going to deny myself the chance to see it on the big screen. It did bring up a few moments that made me ponder, but all in all I'm glad that I got the chance to see it in the cinema.
At 30 years old you'd expect things to be a little dated, and perhaps the general feel of the film is with some old fashioned clothing, but most of it still holds up. The one thing that makes you notice the age is the cast. Everyone looks so young!
It's a fantastic cast too. Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, Adam and Barbara, the perfect couple living a peaceful life out in the country. Winona Ryder, Lydia, the dark and brooding teenage daughter of Jeffrey Jones' Charles and step-daughter to Catherine O'Hara's Delia. We of course can't forget the film's (almost) namesake, Michael Keaton as Betelgeuse. Each one brings a little something different to the film and you get some fun interactions between them all as well as with the supporting cast.
The only real thing that struck me after rewatching this after a few years is that Beetlejuice doesn't actually feature in it as much as I remember. But then the film itself also feels quite short, which at 1 and a half hours it is, again, I just didn't remember it that way.
Some of Beetlejuice's antics may feel a little cringe worthy to newer viewers. To be fair some did to me as a seasoned veteran of the movie. But his over the top nature and motor mouth lead to some entertaining diversions throughout.
The highlights for me as always are the dance routines. (And possibly some of the earliest twerking in the movie biz?) I think we were all dancing a little in our seats as they played out in front of us.
It still brings just as much fun as it did before, it's one of those favourites that you can watch anytime you need something a bit upbeat
What you should do
You should watch this at least once. It's daft and some fun lighthearted humour to break up a dull day.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have the full backing band when I sing at home that would be great!
With the other releases I didn't have much to worry about, they were either brand new to me or I'd never seen them the whole way through so it was going to be a new experience... but this time... could I be risking those great memories? While it did run through my head while I waited for the film to start I wasn't going to deny myself the chance to see it on the big screen. It did bring up a few moments that made me ponder, but all in all I'm glad that I got the chance to see it in the cinema.
At 30 years old you'd expect things to be a little dated, and perhaps the general feel of the film is with some old fashioned clothing, but most of it still holds up. The one thing that makes you notice the age is the cast. Everyone looks so young!
It's a fantastic cast too. Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, Adam and Barbara, the perfect couple living a peaceful life out in the country. Winona Ryder, Lydia, the dark and brooding teenage daughter of Jeffrey Jones' Charles and step-daughter to Catherine O'Hara's Delia. We of course can't forget the film's (almost) namesake, Michael Keaton as Betelgeuse. Each one brings a little something different to the film and you get some fun interactions between them all as well as with the supporting cast.
The only real thing that struck me after rewatching this after a few years is that Beetlejuice doesn't actually feature in it as much as I remember. But then the film itself also feels quite short, which at 1 and a half hours it is, again, I just didn't remember it that way.
Some of Beetlejuice's antics may feel a little cringe worthy to newer viewers. To be fair some did to me as a seasoned veteran of the movie. But his over the top nature and motor mouth lead to some entertaining diversions throughout.
The highlights for me as always are the dance routines. (And possibly some of the earliest twerking in the movie biz?) I think we were all dancing a little in our seats as they played out in front of us.
It still brings just as much fun as it did before, it's one of those favourites that you can watch anytime you need something a bit upbeat
What you should do
You should watch this at least once. It's daft and some fun lighthearted humour to break up a dull day.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have the full backing band when I sing at home that would be great!
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Gideon's Angel in Books
Aug 15, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/