Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Final Destination 5 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director Steven Quale brings us the latest bloody installment of the “Final Destination” series 5 in 3D.
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Don is the new student being sent to a boarding school, he comes from a common family where he has a close group of friends which he would prefer to be around, he does stick out around the rest of the students, easily breaking the rules around the school. Willoughby is the student that must show Don around the school, he fills in the blanks, has a secret and will be the one that helps Don be prepared for everything in the year. Meredith Houseman is one of teachers, he once attended the school, feeling the pride the school embodies, he will end up helping the students against the evil in the school grounds. The Bat is the headmaster, he has been taking bribes to let the fracking happen and isn’t willing to lose the money coming his way.
Performances – Michael Sheen and Simon Pegg both look like they are having a lot of fun playing the stuck up British stereotypes which are here for the supporting roles. Finn Cole takes the lead in this film and he does all he can because this film does try to introduce too many different types of characters, not giving the lead enough time to shine, Asa Butterfield does well with his role too, getting to become a supporting character for once, instead of having the weight of the film put on him.
Story – The story here follows the time at a private British boarding school which sees monsters unleashed on the students, who must fight to save themselves. The weirdest way to describe this film would be to say this is the British boarding school version of ‘Attack the Block’, I say this because we are trying to play into a lot of stereotypes for added comedy to the situation. When we break down this alone we get to see how the British private school system comes off, with the student classes, the students believing they are better than anybody else and how the teachers are trapped in their own illusions. Add in the monsters which is what they feel like, which again disappoints along with one serious side to the story which is almost played out for jokes.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy only works if you find taking the piss out of upper-class English funny, this is what the film is set around getting laughs from. The horror is what the monsters do to the people, it would have been nice to get more time with them, once we do it does work well for blood splatter.
Settings – The film is set on the grounds of a private boarding school, this is put in an isolated location which does help make the film get added horror elements involved.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are mixed because it does feel like the thrown buckets of blood which for the budget isn’t what you want to see, though the creatures do look frightening at times.
Scene of the Movie – Monsters unleashed.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much upper-class British jokes.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun enough horror comedy, it will get the laughs in places and has well created creatures.
Overall: British Ripped apart
Performances – Michael Sheen and Simon Pegg both look like they are having a lot of fun playing the stuck up British stereotypes which are here for the supporting roles. Finn Cole takes the lead in this film and he does all he can because this film does try to introduce too many different types of characters, not giving the lead enough time to shine, Asa Butterfield does well with his role too, getting to become a supporting character for once, instead of having the weight of the film put on him.
Story – The story here follows the time at a private British boarding school which sees monsters unleashed on the students, who must fight to save themselves. The weirdest way to describe this film would be to say this is the British boarding school version of ‘Attack the Block’, I say this because we are trying to play into a lot of stereotypes for added comedy to the situation. When we break down this alone we get to see how the British private school system comes off, with the student classes, the students believing they are better than anybody else and how the teachers are trapped in their own illusions. Add in the monsters which is what they feel like, which again disappoints along with one serious side to the story which is almost played out for jokes.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy only works if you find taking the piss out of upper-class English funny, this is what the film is set around getting laughs from. The horror is what the monsters do to the people, it would have been nice to get more time with them, once we do it does work well for blood splatter.
Settings – The film is set on the grounds of a private boarding school, this is put in an isolated location which does help make the film get added horror elements involved.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are mixed because it does feel like the thrown buckets of blood which for the budget isn’t what you want to see, though the creatures do look frightening at times.
Scene of the Movie – Monsters unleashed.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much upper-class British jokes.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun enough horror comedy, it will get the laughs in places and has well created creatures.
Overall: British Ripped apart
Marble Woka Woka
Games and Entertainment
App
Play Woka Woka, the world’s most dynamic and fun Zuma - style game! Join Woka the Turtle’s quest...
Toca Life: Vacation
Education and Entertainment
App
Make every day a vacation adventure! Feel the excitement of going through the airport to catch your...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Unique
Writer/Director Edgar Wright has developed into one of the more unique film makers working today with a stylistic look, feel and sound to all of his films. Long known as the Director of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and AT WORLD’S EDGE), Wright started coming into his own with the under-rated SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD and the marvelous BABY DRIVER and with his latest film, the trippy thriller LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, Wright has graduated - in my eyes - as a Director who’s work is “must watch” whenever they come out.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
The True Successor to the Original Film
I am a huge fan of the original, 1984 Bill Murray/Dan Ackroyd/Harold Ramis GHOSTBUSTERS - so much a fan, in fact, that I devoted an entire hour of my podcast, the BANKOFMARQUIS MOVIES PODCAST (which can be found in your favorite Podcast app) last Halloween to this film (Episode #23 to be precise). I found that the next 2 follow-up films - GHOSTBUSTERS 2 and the all-female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few years ago - did not even come close to recapturing the magic of that first film.
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Children on the Hill in Books
Jul 28, 2022
I read Jennifer McMahon's book The Invited and liked it, so when I read the synopsis for her new book, The Children on the Hill, I was well intrigued. I decided to give it a read and ended up liking it.
The plot of The Children on the Hill definitely piqued my interest. The book switches between two different years. I was drawn into each time frame. I felt like I was right beside each narrator as their story was being told. Most of the story takes place in Vermont, and I felt that through McMahon's writing, I was transported to each location in Vermont. I was interested in Vi's and Eric's monsters. I also was rooting for Vi to solve Lily's mystery of where she came from. I wanted to know what Gran's secret was for being super successful. I had to know more. This book left no cliff hangars, and I was glad that all my questions were answered. I would have liked to know more about certain characters such as where they came from, but I understand why the author didn't include it in the book. There are a couple of big plot twists in The Children on the Hill. I guessed one right before it was mentioned, but I really didn't see the other one coming. (Kudos to Jennifer McMahon on that!) As for the pacing, there were times that it slowed down to the point where I would get a little bored and take a break. However, the pacing would quickly pick back up. In the last quarter or so of the book, the pacing is done brilliantly, and I didn't want to put the book down at all!
I enjoyed the characters from The Children on the Hill. McMahon did a fabulous job with making each and every character feel realistic instead of make believe. Violet was such a vibrant child, and I enjoyed reading about her quest for knowledge no matter the cost. She was definitely quite the detective! Lily was an enigma that I couldn't figure out at first, but I really liked reading about her. It was interesting to watch her grow each day around Vi and Eric. Lizzy was also a likeable character, and I admired how determined she was to find her sister and solve the mysteries of the missing girls. Gran/Dr. Hildreth came across as a sweet old woman, but I always suspected she was up to something. I had my reservations about her, so I enjoyed reading to find out if my suspicions were correct. McMahon did an excellent job presenting Gran/Dr. Hildreth as a sweet grandmotherly type to Eric and Vi.
Trigger warnings for The Children on the Hill include some profanity, murder, violence, torture, kidnapping, and gaslighting.
All in all, The Children on the Hill is a book with a solid plot featuring a small cast of characters that are interesting to read about and how far they'll go for their cause. The plot will leave you guessing as you try to make it all make sense (though everything will be explained by the end of the book). I would absolutely recommend The Children on the Hill by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 17+ who love trying to figure out a thrilling mystery. This is one book you'll definitely want to pick up!
The plot of The Children on the Hill definitely piqued my interest. The book switches between two different years. I was drawn into each time frame. I felt like I was right beside each narrator as their story was being told. Most of the story takes place in Vermont, and I felt that through McMahon's writing, I was transported to each location in Vermont. I was interested in Vi's and Eric's monsters. I also was rooting for Vi to solve Lily's mystery of where she came from. I wanted to know what Gran's secret was for being super successful. I had to know more. This book left no cliff hangars, and I was glad that all my questions were answered. I would have liked to know more about certain characters such as where they came from, but I understand why the author didn't include it in the book. There are a couple of big plot twists in The Children on the Hill. I guessed one right before it was mentioned, but I really didn't see the other one coming. (Kudos to Jennifer McMahon on that!) As for the pacing, there were times that it slowed down to the point where I would get a little bored and take a break. However, the pacing would quickly pick back up. In the last quarter or so of the book, the pacing is done brilliantly, and I didn't want to put the book down at all!
I enjoyed the characters from The Children on the Hill. McMahon did a fabulous job with making each and every character feel realistic instead of make believe. Violet was such a vibrant child, and I enjoyed reading about her quest for knowledge no matter the cost. She was definitely quite the detective! Lily was an enigma that I couldn't figure out at first, but I really liked reading about her. It was interesting to watch her grow each day around Vi and Eric. Lizzy was also a likeable character, and I admired how determined she was to find her sister and solve the mysteries of the missing girls. Gran/Dr. Hildreth came across as a sweet old woman, but I always suspected she was up to something. I had my reservations about her, so I enjoyed reading to find out if my suspicions were correct. McMahon did an excellent job presenting Gran/Dr. Hildreth as a sweet grandmotherly type to Eric and Vi.
Trigger warnings for The Children on the Hill include some profanity, murder, violence, torture, kidnapping, and gaslighting.
All in all, The Children on the Hill is a book with a solid plot featuring a small cast of characters that are interesting to read about and how far they'll go for their cause. The plot will leave you guessing as you try to make it all make sense (though everything will be explained by the end of the book). I would absolutely recommend The Children on the Hill by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 17+ who love trying to figure out a thrilling mystery. This is one book you'll definitely want to pick up!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)