Search
Search results
Room on the Broom
Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler
8.9
Rate It
Book
"How the cat purred and how the witch grinned, As they sat on their broomstick and flew through the...
Darren Hayman recommended The Haden Triplets by The Haden Triplets in Music (curated)
Six Months, Three Days, Five Others
Book
"A master absurdist...Highly recommended." ―The New York Times Before the success of her debut...
Science fiction
Letter To You by Bruce Springsteen
Album
Letter To You is Bruce Springsteen’s new studio album with the E Street Band, and is a rock album...
Stargazer by Marti Pellow
Album
'Stargazer' is the latest instalment in a remarkable solo career that's seen Pellow embark on a new...
The End of Cuthbert Close
Book
You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your neighbours. (Trad. proverb, origin:...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wall Street (1987) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
When looking to review a film like this, there are two distinct points of view to take in to a account:
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eli (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Eli is the young boy with the auto-immune disease, he does suffer nightmares about what would happen if he was outside, he lives in a bubble, which is his only safety in life. He is going through an experimental procedure which is meant to cure him, only for him to start suffering haunting visions and attacks by ghosts, he must figure out if they are trying to harm him or help him before he reaches the latest procedure. Rose and Paul are the religious parents that have given up nearly everything to make their son’s life better, trying to remain strong for him throughout the events of the film. Dr Isabella Horn is the doctor that is trying to help Eli, only her methods don’t seem to get explained to the family, while they are left to just believe anything she says. Haley is a girl from the neighbourhood that visits Eli, hoping to find friendship, though she does know the fate of most of the people in the house.
Performances – Charlie Shotwell does a wonderful job in the leading role, suffering through medical procedures, hauntings and emotional problems with ease through the film. Kelly Reilly, Max Martini and Lili Taylor are all strong through the film, which we don’t see much away from Charlie from any of them. Sadie Sink is solid without having much to do, other than being a friend to talk too.
Story – The story here follows a young boy with a medical condition who gets taken to an experimental hospital for treatment, when he starts getting visits from ghosts, where he might learn the truth about the hospital. This is a story which does keep you on your toes, you will constantly be thrown through different sub-genres of horror and it is excellent to see how the film can keep you guessing and leave you surprised by the ending, because if anybody saw this coming, they would be a liar. This is a story where not learning too much going in is even better because it does start with what could be a routine horror, but will leave you shocked by the end.
Horror – The horror here does seem to jump through so many sub-genres of horror it is a joy to watch, because the transition is seamless throughout.
Settings – The film keeps most of the film inside the hospital, this is an excellent location for the film to be set, which sees everything unfold down the dark filled hallways.
Special Effects – The effects do come off well too with how everything happens, be it the ghostly figures or the more practical ones too.
Scene of the Movie – The ghosts in the mirror.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The abusive people at the start of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does truly keep you on your toes, it is great to see this too, we will get scares and surprises and you won’t believe how everything unfolds.
Overall: Surprising Throughout.
Performances – Charlie Shotwell does a wonderful job in the leading role, suffering through medical procedures, hauntings and emotional problems with ease through the film. Kelly Reilly, Max Martini and Lili Taylor are all strong through the film, which we don’t see much away from Charlie from any of them. Sadie Sink is solid without having much to do, other than being a friend to talk too.
Story – The story here follows a young boy with a medical condition who gets taken to an experimental hospital for treatment, when he starts getting visits from ghosts, where he might learn the truth about the hospital. This is a story which does keep you on your toes, you will constantly be thrown through different sub-genres of horror and it is excellent to see how the film can keep you guessing and leave you surprised by the ending, because if anybody saw this coming, they would be a liar. This is a story where not learning too much going in is even better because it does start with what could be a routine horror, but will leave you shocked by the end.
Horror – The horror here does seem to jump through so many sub-genres of horror it is a joy to watch, because the transition is seamless throughout.
Settings – The film keeps most of the film inside the hospital, this is an excellent location for the film to be set, which sees everything unfold down the dark filled hallways.
Special Effects – The effects do come off well too with how everything happens, be it the ghostly figures or the more practical ones too.
Scene of the Movie – The ghosts in the mirror.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The abusive people at the start of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does truly keep you on your toes, it is great to see this too, we will get scares and surprises and you won’t believe how everything unfolds.
Overall: Surprising Throughout.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.