Search
Search results
Christ In Song
Music and Book
1.0
Rate It
App
We are pleased to present the Christ in Song hymn treasury. These hymns are hand-picked for their...
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated War of the Cards in Books
Feb 16, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
WAR OF THE CARDS
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 31, 2019 (Updated May 31, 2019)
Well, I liked it!
Before heading into Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I saw a lot of wildly mixed reviews online. People were either hating it or loving it, with nobody really feeling anything in-between. Even those cinema goers who were fully prepared for nothing more than a bunch of big monsters fighting alongside insignificant human bystanders were coming away from it fuming. Well, I’m happy to say that I’m putting myself firmly in the ‘loved it’ category, although I do understand and appreciate a lot of the issues that the haters have with it.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Feb 10, 2018 (Updated Feb 10, 2018)
Cover Granny's eyes and ears
The question we must ask ourselves here is: does adding graphic gory violence and F-bombs by the cartload really transform a reasonably formulaic X-men franchise movie into something qualitatively different? Because it seems to me that if you were to make a PG-rated edit of Logan it would not feel that much different from many of the other films in the series. Well, perhaps I exaggerate just a bit, because the film does have a downbeat mood quite unusual for this genre, and the focus on the fragility of its characters does give the actors a lot to work with (though Hugh Jackman is, quite predictably, acted off the screen by Patrick Stewart).
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Mandy (2018) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019 (Updated Oct 30, 2019)
A ride from start to finish
Mandy is an utterly bizarre experience, but it's one that kept me absolutely enthralled from beginning to end.
The basic plot is pretty simple - Red (Nicolas Cage) and Mandy (Andrea Riseborough) live an idyllic and secluded life until a run in with a cult-like group lead by Jeremiah Sand (Linus Roache).
After a night of terror falls on the couple, Red takes it upon himself to exact bloody vengeance on those who have harmed them.
This straightforward horror-revenge narrative however is washed in a truly striking example of filmaking.
The cinematography throughout is gorgeous, from huge sweeping shots, to grainier settings full of fog and red light. Director Panos Cosmatos lands numerous memorable shots and presents with a surreal visual experience with a continuous 80s vibe under the surface.
This distinct style paired with a beautiful synth heavy score from the late Jóhann Jóhannsson (which constantly reminded me of Twin Peaks) gives the movie a dream-like coating that gives the movie a really unsettling and downright creepy presence.
King Crimson plays over the opening credits also, which is always going to win me over!
The first half is a slow burner (the title card doesn't appear until 70 minutes in!), really taking advantage of everything mentioned above, before taking a pretty crazy, LSD drenched turn.
The gorier moments of Mandy happen here, and they're pretty effective, outlandish, but at the same time realistic. It certainly sticks with you as the movie slips further into a drug fuelled bloody nightmare. (there's a goddamn chainsaw duel!)
The cast are all pretty decent - Linus Roache makes for a menacing villain during his limited screentime, and his followers are suitably weird (the whole thing has a horrible Charles Manson vibe to it), and Nicolas Cage is both unnervingly restrained at times (even when drenched in blood) with the odd moment of full blown Cage that we've come to know and love.
Mandy deals with themes of love, revenge, toxic masculinity, religion, and cultism, all wrapped up in a truly outlandish and violent fever dream.
Some people love it, some people hate it, but it's certainly unlike any horror I've seen before and I though it's was pretty damn good.
The basic plot is pretty simple - Red (Nicolas Cage) and Mandy (Andrea Riseborough) live an idyllic and secluded life until a run in with a cult-like group lead by Jeremiah Sand (Linus Roache).
After a night of terror falls on the couple, Red takes it upon himself to exact bloody vengeance on those who have harmed them.
This straightforward horror-revenge narrative however is washed in a truly striking example of filmaking.
The cinematography throughout is gorgeous, from huge sweeping shots, to grainier settings full of fog and red light. Director Panos Cosmatos lands numerous memorable shots and presents with a surreal visual experience with a continuous 80s vibe under the surface.
This distinct style paired with a beautiful synth heavy score from the late Jóhann Jóhannsson (which constantly reminded me of Twin Peaks) gives the movie a dream-like coating that gives the movie a really unsettling and downright creepy presence.
King Crimson plays over the opening credits also, which is always going to win me over!
The first half is a slow burner (the title card doesn't appear until 70 minutes in!), really taking advantage of everything mentioned above, before taking a pretty crazy, LSD drenched turn.
The gorier moments of Mandy happen here, and they're pretty effective, outlandish, but at the same time realistic. It certainly sticks with you as the movie slips further into a drug fuelled bloody nightmare. (there's a goddamn chainsaw duel!)
The cast are all pretty decent - Linus Roache makes for a menacing villain during his limited screentime, and his followers are suitably weird (the whole thing has a horrible Charles Manson vibe to it), and Nicolas Cage is both unnervingly restrained at times (even when drenched in blood) with the odd moment of full blown Cage that we've come to know and love.
Mandy deals with themes of love, revenge, toxic masculinity, religion, and cultism, all wrapped up in a truly outlandish and violent fever dream.
Some people love it, some people hate it, but it's certainly unlike any horror I've seen before and I though it's was pretty damn good.
The Lost Detective: Becoming Dashiell Hammett
Book
A 2016 Edgar Award Nominee Before he became a household name in America as perhaps our greatest...
The British Cinema Book: 2009
Book
The new edition of The British Cinema Book has been thoroughly revised and updated to provide a...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Sep 8, 2019
A nice vampire surprise!
A vampire "plague" has killed off most of the human population, only about 5% or less now survives. (This film was made in 2009, so 2019 is the year this will happen!). Vampires now occupy our cities and have transformed the Earth to suit their needs including conduit walkways between buildings, underground tunnels they can walk so they don't have to walk through the sun and even automated cars which close off the sunlight so no risk of frying on the way to work.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.