Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Frankenstein (1931) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Everyone remembers the story of Frankenstein, or at least the first part. We all know Dr. Frankenstein assembles his "creation" from the bodies of the deceased and his assistant henchman brings him the brain from a criminal instead of a "normal" brain. His creation is then elevated to the heavens during a lightning storm and given the 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity he needs to regain life and drive the DeLorean back to the future! (Come to think of it, that might be a different film!) 😋
What you may not remember is the 2nd half of the film where the monster, presumed dead, wanders the countryside searching for the meaning of life and meets a young girl. The two sit by the shore trading flowers and tossing them into the water. The monster thinks it would be a good idea t toss the girl as well accidentally killing her.
After hearing about the atrocity, the townspeople form a lynch mob determined to hunt down and destroy the monster once and for all. The creature ends up at a lighthouse where his final fate is carried out.
Some other facts I may not have remember or never knew at all:
-Dr. Frankenstein's first name is Henry (I thought it was Viktor)
-Henchman' name Fritz (not Igor)
-Mary Shelley's opening writing credit is listed as Mrs. Percy B. Shelley (lame)
- The Monster's acting credit at the beginning is listed as "?" (not until the end credits is Boris Karloff given his due)
-No soundtrack during the film at all other than the opening and closing credits (I found out from the film historian DVD audio commentary in film music wasn't begun as a normal practice until sometime after this film's release in 1931)
Some other facts you may not remember is how excellent Boris Karloff really is as the monster. He takes you from hating him, to loving him, to feeling pity for him in the course of his limited screen time.
Also, for the time period, the set design and cinematography are breathtaking in glorious black and white. You really feel you are there with Frankenstein as he creates his masterpiece and watches quickly while he decidedly begins to regret his decision.
This time of year is fun to watch the spooky and scary. In this case, this classic is both and is not that long so you can watch more than one Frankenfilm tonight!
What you may not remember is the 2nd half of the film where the monster, presumed dead, wanders the countryside searching for the meaning of life and meets a young girl. The two sit by the shore trading flowers and tossing them into the water. The monster thinks it would be a good idea t toss the girl as well accidentally killing her.
After hearing about the atrocity, the townspeople form a lynch mob determined to hunt down and destroy the monster once and for all. The creature ends up at a lighthouse where his final fate is carried out.
Some other facts I may not have remember or never knew at all:
-Dr. Frankenstein's first name is Henry (I thought it was Viktor)
-Henchman' name Fritz (not Igor)
-Mary Shelley's opening writing credit is listed as Mrs. Percy B. Shelley (lame)
- The Monster's acting credit at the beginning is listed as "?" (not until the end credits is Boris Karloff given his due)
-No soundtrack during the film at all other than the opening and closing credits (I found out from the film historian DVD audio commentary in film music wasn't begun as a normal practice until sometime after this film's release in 1931)
Some other facts you may not remember is how excellent Boris Karloff really is as the monster. He takes you from hating him, to loving him, to feeling pity for him in the course of his limited screen time.
Also, for the time period, the set design and cinematography are breathtaking in glorious black and white. You really feel you are there with Frankenstein as he creates his masterpiece and watches quickly while he decidedly begins to regret his decision.
This time of year is fun to watch the spooky and scary. In this case, this classic is both and is not that long so you can watch more than one Frankenfilm tonight!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Trouble In Paradise (1932) in Movies
Sep 30, 2019
Highly Entertaining
I love that I don’t have to score on a curve when watching the classics. Movies like Trouble In Paradise really do stand the test of time and are quality movies in comparison with even today’s standards. Sure, techniques may have been adjusted for today’s time, but the movie as is is truly a joy. in Trouble In Paradise, two crooks in love plan a heist against a perfume company executive, but the plot truly thickens when things don’t quite go as planned.
Acting: 10
When it comes to performances, each person played their part extremely well. However, I have to give the biggest nod to Herbert Marshall as Gaston. He handles the role with a suave nature that takes over every scene he appears in. He handles the emotional brunt of the movie in a way where you can truly see how torn he is.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Gaston will make you laugh but he will also make you feel. He is a flawed character with many layers. I love that you really don’t know what he’s going to do next. While I thoroughly enjoyed the two female leads as well, Gaston carried the movie in my opinion.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie takes you all over Paris from grand hotels to expansive ballrooms. I enjoyed how director Ernst Lubitsch captures the sleight of hand from the thieves. There were also a few shots hit from different angles to capture point-of-view that I especially appreciated. Overall, the cinematography added to the beauty of the film.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
What makes this film so entertaining and separates it from other classics is that feeling of the unknown. I couldn’t guess what was going to happen if I tried and it made me appreciate the movie that much more. In addition, not only does it have its hilarious moments but some emotional ones as well. Trouble In Paradise takes you on a rollercoaster from start to finish.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story that keeps you guessing. Also, the movie proves that less is more with a plot that’s extremely easy to follow but also intuitive. In the end it’s a story that leaves much for interpretation and lets you decide how you think things unfold.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
From the beginning, this movie grabs your attention and holds it until the last shot. The more I thought about Trouble In Paradise, the more it captivated me. If you are looking for a quality classic, look no further.
Acting: 10
When it comes to performances, each person played their part extremely well. However, I have to give the biggest nod to Herbert Marshall as Gaston. He handles the role with a suave nature that takes over every scene he appears in. He handles the emotional brunt of the movie in a way where you can truly see how torn he is.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Gaston will make you laugh but he will also make you feel. He is a flawed character with many layers. I love that you really don’t know what he’s going to do next. While I thoroughly enjoyed the two female leads as well, Gaston carried the movie in my opinion.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie takes you all over Paris from grand hotels to expansive ballrooms. I enjoyed how director Ernst Lubitsch captures the sleight of hand from the thieves. There were also a few shots hit from different angles to capture point-of-view that I especially appreciated. Overall, the cinematography added to the beauty of the film.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
What makes this film so entertaining and separates it from other classics is that feeling of the unknown. I couldn’t guess what was going to happen if I tried and it made me appreciate the movie that much more. In addition, not only does it have its hilarious moments but some emotional ones as well. Trouble In Paradise takes you on a rollercoaster from start to finish.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story that keeps you guessing. Also, the movie proves that less is more with a plot that’s extremely easy to follow but also intuitive. In the end it’s a story that leaves much for interpretation and lets you decide how you think things unfold.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
From the beginning, this movie grabs your attention and holds it until the last shot. The more I thought about Trouble In Paradise, the more it captivated me. If you are looking for a quality classic, look no further.
Becs (244 KP) rated The Book Thief in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I have no idea why I didn’t pick The Book Thief up sooner. It was honestly one of the best novels I’ve read so far this year. Scratch that, probably even one of the best novels I’ve read in my entire lifetime. Well, it might actually be a very close second to Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo haha.
One thing that I enjoyed while reading was the narrator of the story (death himself) and all the little bits that are thrown throughout the text like this:
***THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN A BOY WHO HATES YOU***
A boy who loves you.
The author takes such a serious and sad topic and throws in love, sarcasm, and happiness. This was such a well rounded, beautiful and classic novel that I just couldn’t put it down. I loved every second of it, even though at first I was a little skeptical. But that’s only because I was in such a sour mood and reading slump when I started The Book Thief.
If you’re looking for a fast read, don’t read this. This took time to read and to understand. To process all that was going on. Markus Zusak doesn’t write The Book Thief in a morbid way that most books about the Holocaust are written, but instead with humor and love and happiness. The good and the bad all intermingled together to create an amazing book that I will be recommending to everybody from now on.
I cried. I laughed. I got pissed. I was stricken with grief, with pain, and with love. I felt that I went through almost every emotion that my body has while reading The Book Thief. And I honestly wanted more.
I wanted more of Liesel’s story after being the only one to survive on Himmel Street. I wanted spin-offs of Rudy and Liesel developing a relationship as they became teenagers and giving me that love story with a tragic back story. I wanted so much more but at the same time, I was content and happy with how the novel ended. I wouldn’t have changed anything about The Book Thief and I will most definitely be rereading it very soon. This is a book that will be cherished for an eternity.
If you haven’t picked up The Book Thief yet, please drop what you’re doing and read it. It will most defiantly change your life.
“And it would show me, once again, that one opportunity leads directly to another, just as risk leads to more risk, life to more life, and death to more death.”
One thing that I enjoyed while reading was the narrator of the story (death himself) and all the little bits that are thrown throughout the text like this:
***THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN A BOY WHO HATES YOU***
A boy who loves you.
The author takes such a serious and sad topic and throws in love, sarcasm, and happiness. This was such a well rounded, beautiful and classic novel that I just couldn’t put it down. I loved every second of it, even though at first I was a little skeptical. But that’s only because I was in such a sour mood and reading slump when I started The Book Thief.
If you’re looking for a fast read, don’t read this. This took time to read and to understand. To process all that was going on. Markus Zusak doesn’t write The Book Thief in a morbid way that most books about the Holocaust are written, but instead with humor and love and happiness. The good and the bad all intermingled together to create an amazing book that I will be recommending to everybody from now on.
I cried. I laughed. I got pissed. I was stricken with grief, with pain, and with love. I felt that I went through almost every emotion that my body has while reading The Book Thief. And I honestly wanted more.
I wanted more of Liesel’s story after being the only one to survive on Himmel Street. I wanted spin-offs of Rudy and Liesel developing a relationship as they became teenagers and giving me that love story with a tragic back story. I wanted so much more but at the same time, I was content and happy with how the novel ended. I wouldn’t have changed anything about The Book Thief and I will most definitely be rereading it very soon. This is a book that will be cherished for an eternity.
If you haven’t picked up The Book Thief yet, please drop what you’re doing and read it. It will most defiantly change your life.
“And it would show me, once again, that one opportunity leads directly to another, just as risk leads to more risk, life to more life, and death to more death.”
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) in Movies
Sep 22, 2019
The creature lurks!
In the Amazon jungle, a prehistoric amphibian claw fossil is found prodding local scientists to investigate its origins. They decide on an expedition to gain more information and possibly locate its origins.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 19, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
A dammmnnn shame
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh boy.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mega Shark vs Kolossus (2015) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
Amendment to the shark rules, having "mega" in the title... *chef's kiss*
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Silver Streak (1976) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
The start of a wonderful comedic partnership
Most people remember Gene Wilder as the frazzled haired wild man in such Mel Brooks classic films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Others will recall him as the mad genius that held our attention in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but there was a 3rd phase to Wilder's career - his unlikely partnership with Richard Pryor - that started with 1976's SILVER STREAK.
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated From Blood and Ash (Blood and Ash #1) in Books
Jan 25, 2022
Surprisingly Good *Not The Teen Novel It Is Made Out To Be....Adult Content*
To start out with potential readers need to be aware that this book and in fact the entire series is apparently considered to be teen novels. In fact, I pulled it from the front shelf in the teen section of my local library. While as a teen reading explicit materials was not a problem for me and my parents were ok with it as well I do recognize the fact that there are many parents who would not appreciate their teens reading the kind of content this book contains. The fact that nowhere on the book's cover or on its GoodReads or Amazon profile does it state that this should be for mature readers only is concerning. When I say that this book is explicit I mean that there are quite a few "adult situations" that are described in detail in which that detail is not necessary to carry the plotline along even if the occurrence of the situation does. You have been warned...
Moving on
So the only reason why I read this book is that the third book in the series "The Crown of Guilded Bones" was ranked very high on GoodReads. In fact, I believe it actually ranked in the 2021 books of the year. Anyway, the third book sounded great so I went back and started the series from the beginning.
This book follows the life of Poppy AKA The Maden. Being named the Maiden is supposed to be a huge honor but it comes with a lot of strict rules that make it feel more like a punishment than anything else. Unsurprisingly Poppy comes to find that the world she lives in is not at all what she thinks it to be and must face hard truths as she races to the capital of her land to be protected from the Atlantians but is that really what is happening?
This book offers a surprisingly unique look at some classic fantasy themes, characters, and creatures. There is very little that is as it seems and there are so many twists that it will make the reader pause to process the new direction the story moves in every few chapters. While it isn't exactly a short book this is almost guaranteed to be a quick read because you are not going to want to put it down.
Moving on
So the only reason why I read this book is that the third book in the series "The Crown of Guilded Bones" was ranked very high on GoodReads. In fact, I believe it actually ranked in the 2021 books of the year. Anyway, the third book sounded great so I went back and started the series from the beginning.
This book follows the life of Poppy AKA The Maden. Being named the Maiden is supposed to be a huge honor but it comes with a lot of strict rules that make it feel more like a punishment than anything else. Unsurprisingly Poppy comes to find that the world she lives in is not at all what she thinks it to be and must face hard truths as she races to the capital of her land to be protected from the Atlantians but is that really what is happening?
This book offers a surprisingly unique look at some classic fantasy themes, characters, and creatures. There is very little that is as it seems and there are so many twists that it will make the reader pause to process the new direction the story moves in every few chapters. While it isn't exactly a short book this is almost guaranteed to be a quick read because you are not going to want to put it down.