Search
Search results
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated House of Madness in Books
Mar 1, 2019
Good Pacing (1 more)
Interesting Characters
An Okay Ghost Story
I love love love paranormal thrillers! Ghost stories are my favorite, so when House of Madness by Sara Harris was up for review, I jumped at the chance. However, House of Madness was just an okay story. It wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't bad either.
The plot for House of Madness has been done before, but it was interesting to see how Sara Harris changed it up a bit. Adelaide (Addie), her husband Tim, and their daughter, Michaela, who's on the Autistic spectrum move to a great big house out in West Texas. Addie is an aspiring writer and had suffered a miscarriage previously. This new house, that they bought on the cheap, is their chance for a fresh start. However, it isn't long until weird things start happening and Michaela seems to have made a ghostly friend. The house previously belonged to a couple of doctors, and it also comes with a horrific past. There were times the plot seemed a bit far-fetched, but for the most part, I found the story to be enjoyable and entertaining. There were no cliff hangers in House of Madness, although I was left with one or two questions about the ending which I won't go into because to do so would mean spoilers. There were a couple of plot twists. I was able to easily predict one.
I felt some of the prose was a bit wacky sounding. One sentence in the book that sounded a bit strange was "His voice trailed off and mixed with a hot swirl of West Texas air." Maybe it's just me, but it didn't sound right. Another weird sounding sentence I found was "The closet door fell open with a creak." I imagined the door actually falling. Surely, it would have been better to write "The closet door opened with a creak"? Maybe I'm just being too pedantic. There were times when I felt like I was reading a young adult novel rather than a book aimed at adults. Saying all of that, I still did find the book to be a decent read.
I enjoyed the characters in House of Madness. They all felt realistic. Michaela and Addie seemed to be the main characters, and I enjoyed reading about them. I loved how sweet Michaela came across, and I loved how brave Addie could be. I enjoyed the little ghost girl named Lisette. I was always wondering if she'd turn out to double cross Michaela though. The ghost of Ritchie was definitely an interesting character. He was another one that made me question whether or not he would turn out bad or good. I always trusted Rochelle for some reason. The doctors, Marjorie and Roland Darkland, were also well written although they must have been very fit for an older couple considering they were probably supposed to be in their early 80s at the very least. (For the record, I'm assuming that House of Madness takes place in modern day. It's never actually mentioned what year it is.)
House of Madness is a short read, and the pacing made it feel even shorter. I thought that Sara Harris did an excellent job with the pacing. I found myself not wanting to stop reading at all. I had to know what happened next concerning the ghosts as well as the living characters.
Trigger warnings for House of Madness include violence, murder, attempted murder, mental illnesses, and talk of a miscarriage.
Overall, House of Madness was an alright read. Yes, the writing was a little shaky at times, but it's still worth reading for those who enjoy ghost stories. The characters were great, and the pacing was fantastic. I would recommend House of Madness by Sara Harris to those aged 15+ who like a short ghost story.
--
(A special thank you to Silver Dagger Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of House of Madness by Sara Harris in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for House of Madness has been done before, but it was interesting to see how Sara Harris changed it up a bit. Adelaide (Addie), her husband Tim, and their daughter, Michaela, who's on the Autistic spectrum move to a great big house out in West Texas. Addie is an aspiring writer and had suffered a miscarriage previously. This new house, that they bought on the cheap, is their chance for a fresh start. However, it isn't long until weird things start happening and Michaela seems to have made a ghostly friend. The house previously belonged to a couple of doctors, and it also comes with a horrific past. There were times the plot seemed a bit far-fetched, but for the most part, I found the story to be enjoyable and entertaining. There were no cliff hangers in House of Madness, although I was left with one or two questions about the ending which I won't go into because to do so would mean spoilers. There were a couple of plot twists. I was able to easily predict one.
I felt some of the prose was a bit wacky sounding. One sentence in the book that sounded a bit strange was "His voice trailed off and mixed with a hot swirl of West Texas air." Maybe it's just me, but it didn't sound right. Another weird sounding sentence I found was "The closet door fell open with a creak." I imagined the door actually falling. Surely, it would have been better to write "The closet door opened with a creak"? Maybe I'm just being too pedantic. There were times when I felt like I was reading a young adult novel rather than a book aimed at adults. Saying all of that, I still did find the book to be a decent read.
I enjoyed the characters in House of Madness. They all felt realistic. Michaela and Addie seemed to be the main characters, and I enjoyed reading about them. I loved how sweet Michaela came across, and I loved how brave Addie could be. I enjoyed the little ghost girl named Lisette. I was always wondering if she'd turn out to double cross Michaela though. The ghost of Ritchie was definitely an interesting character. He was another one that made me question whether or not he would turn out bad or good. I always trusted Rochelle for some reason. The doctors, Marjorie and Roland Darkland, were also well written although they must have been very fit for an older couple considering they were probably supposed to be in their early 80s at the very least. (For the record, I'm assuming that House of Madness takes place in modern day. It's never actually mentioned what year it is.)
House of Madness is a short read, and the pacing made it feel even shorter. I thought that Sara Harris did an excellent job with the pacing. I found myself not wanting to stop reading at all. I had to know what happened next concerning the ghosts as well as the living characters.
Trigger warnings for House of Madness include violence, murder, attempted murder, mental illnesses, and talk of a miscarriage.
Overall, House of Madness was an alright read. Yes, the writing was a little shaky at times, but it's still worth reading for those who enjoy ghost stories. The characters were great, and the pacing was fantastic. I would recommend House of Madness by Sara Harris to those aged 15+ who like a short ghost story.
--
(A special thank you to Silver Dagger Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of House of Madness by Sara Harris in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Antichrist (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A married couple suffers one of the greatest losses any couple could endure, but the wife seems to be taking it harder than the husband. She's enrolled in a hospital until he, a therapist, thinks the doctors aren't doing a good enough job with her and that she'd do better at home under his care. She blames herself for their suffering while he thinks he can help her. They decide to depart to a cabin in the woods in hopes of relaxing a bit and to undergo his therapy. Things start out a bit rough, but it seems like progress is being made. That is until nature steps in, who has other plans for them, and the situation begins to quickly deteriorate.
This is quite possibly the most disturbing film I've ever sat through. Inside made me feel incredibly uneasy and Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door made me feel uncomfortable and a little nauseous, but Antichrist seems to take it to another level (I haven't seen Irreversible, however, which I hear Antichrist being compared to quite a bit). While Antichrist doesn't show absolutely everything and it's usually rather brief when it comes to showing disturbing material, it shows enough to make your stomach drop.
Throughout the film, everything that takes place just doesn't feel right. From the very first scene, the viewer knows that the film probably isn't going to be an easy watch. The character's actions and the setting being rather isolated leads one to believe a series of unfortunate events will eventually be taking place. Antichrist doesn't swerve the viewer into thinking it's going to be something else. The foundation is set right from the get-go. The film slowly builds towards the last thirty minutes or so and you're kind of left thinking, "I've got a bad feeling about this," up until that point. However, once things start taking a turn for the worst, your reaction will be something along the lines of, "Oh no, what is she going to do with...WHAT THE F---?! Now she's taking a...what is that?! OH S---!"
Everything else leading to the last half of the film is done incredibly well. The cinematography is rather incredible, especially while they're in Eden. Everything is so lush and green while certain shots alone say more than the characters in the film ever could. The score is haunting and successfully establishes putting its viewers on edge. The song used at the beginning and end of the film is beautiful yet heartbreaking at the same time. The entire film is spent with this married couple and their performances are top notch. It's just those last thirty to forty five minutes take such an abrupt turn. The film hints at things going downhill, but everything hits the fan so suddenly. Nothing can really prepare you for how unrelenting and horrifying the finale is. The events that unfold in this film will haunt you and stick with you for an incredibly long time.
The less you know about Antichrist, the more surprising that first viewing will be. That's the main reason this review is so vague. Don't read up on it and don't watch anything other than the trailer before seeing the film. Just be warned, the film shows enough for a gut-wrenching reaction. It's no In the Realm of the Senses, but it's definitely along those lines. Antichrist's strongest asset is the atmosphere it builds throughout the film. The air just seems to be constantly thick with the fact that something terrible is going to happen at any moment. While the film is disturbing, shocking, and was able to make me feel things most horror films aren't capable of, I wouldn't say the film was enjoyable. It's not to say the film isn't done well because it is in almost every aspect, but I could hardly see myself popping the movie in to entertain me on a Saturday night. The film takes its toll on you and I don't think it's a film I'd really enjoy sitting through again.
This is quite possibly the most disturbing film I've ever sat through. Inside made me feel incredibly uneasy and Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door made me feel uncomfortable and a little nauseous, but Antichrist seems to take it to another level (I haven't seen Irreversible, however, which I hear Antichrist being compared to quite a bit). While Antichrist doesn't show absolutely everything and it's usually rather brief when it comes to showing disturbing material, it shows enough to make your stomach drop.
Throughout the film, everything that takes place just doesn't feel right. From the very first scene, the viewer knows that the film probably isn't going to be an easy watch. The character's actions and the setting being rather isolated leads one to believe a series of unfortunate events will eventually be taking place. Antichrist doesn't swerve the viewer into thinking it's going to be something else. The foundation is set right from the get-go. The film slowly builds towards the last thirty minutes or so and you're kind of left thinking, "I've got a bad feeling about this," up until that point. However, once things start taking a turn for the worst, your reaction will be something along the lines of, "Oh no, what is she going to do with...WHAT THE F---?! Now she's taking a...what is that?! OH S---!"
Everything else leading to the last half of the film is done incredibly well. The cinematography is rather incredible, especially while they're in Eden. Everything is so lush and green while certain shots alone say more than the characters in the film ever could. The score is haunting and successfully establishes putting its viewers on edge. The song used at the beginning and end of the film is beautiful yet heartbreaking at the same time. The entire film is spent with this married couple and their performances are top notch. It's just those last thirty to forty five minutes take such an abrupt turn. The film hints at things going downhill, but everything hits the fan so suddenly. Nothing can really prepare you for how unrelenting and horrifying the finale is. The events that unfold in this film will haunt you and stick with you for an incredibly long time.
The less you know about Antichrist, the more surprising that first viewing will be. That's the main reason this review is so vague. Don't read up on it and don't watch anything other than the trailer before seeing the film. Just be warned, the film shows enough for a gut-wrenching reaction. It's no In the Realm of the Senses, but it's definitely along those lines. Antichrist's strongest asset is the atmosphere it builds throughout the film. The air just seems to be constantly thick with the fact that something terrible is going to happen at any moment. While the film is disturbing, shocking, and was able to make me feel things most horror films aren't capable of, I wouldn't say the film was enjoyable. It's not to say the film isn't done well because it is in almost every aspect, but I could hardly see myself popping the movie in to entertain me on a Saturday night. The film takes its toll on you and I don't think it's a film I'd really enjoy sitting through again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
mahjong 13 tiles · no ad
Games and Entertainment
App
No ad version of the "Mahjong 13 tiles".Reduces the AI difficulty, this will lead to better game...
Not as funny as I hoped, but engaging enough
Holland has been obsessed with a handsome subway busker for quite some time. One evening, he winds up rescuing her after she falls on the subway tracks, kicking off a whirlwind of events. Holland helps Calvin get an audition with her uncle Robert, a Broadway musical director. Calvin is infinitely talented, but, it turns out, also in the United States illegally. So Holland does something she never does: makes an impulsive decision. She'll offer to marry Calvin so he can stay in the country, live out his dream, and help her uncle's hit show. Calvin quickly becomes a Broadway star. As for Calvin and Holland--they quickly realize they may be more than roommates. But what will it take for them to admit it? And for each to move past their own issues?
This was my first Christina Lauren book, which I picked up after hearing lots of Goodreads friends praise the dynamic duo. I am always a sucker for a good, fun romance. I was surprised to find the book start with Holland already lusting after Calvin, whom she called "Jack," as she watched him from afar at the subway. The action gets underway quickly, and it did seem like they each agreed to their extreme plan (marriage to someone they'd never met!) rather rapidly and easily. Even Holland's protective uncles came on board very quickly.
Some pros--a somewhat diverse cast, including Holland's adorable gay uncles, who were often couple goals. I enjoyed getting some insight into a Broadway musical, as well as the immigration process, although I bet both of those were sugarcoated a bit. Still, I found Holland a bit of a doormat; she frustrated me with her lack of ability to stand up for herself. While her inability to find herself is the premise of the book, a strong romance only works for me if I'm invested in the characters, and I just didn't always feel it with Holland and Calvin. Holland was too wishy washy and I never felt like I got to know Calvin enough. It was frustrating, because I could see moments of humor in the book, but never enough to truly win me over. I needed more to fully root for the couple. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book: it's cute and fun at times, and an easy read.
Overall, I had a tough time warming up to the main characters, and I didn't always find the funny situations that humorous. The premise was a little crazy, but was engaging enough. I'll be curious to see how I feel about my next Christina Lauren read.
This was my first Christina Lauren book, which I picked up after hearing lots of Goodreads friends praise the dynamic duo. I am always a sucker for a good, fun romance. I was surprised to find the book start with Holland already lusting after Calvin, whom she called "Jack," as she watched him from afar at the subway. The action gets underway quickly, and it did seem like they each agreed to their extreme plan (marriage to someone they'd never met!) rather rapidly and easily. Even Holland's protective uncles came on board very quickly.
Some pros--a somewhat diverse cast, including Holland's adorable gay uncles, who were often couple goals. I enjoyed getting some insight into a Broadway musical, as well as the immigration process, although I bet both of those were sugarcoated a bit. Still, I found Holland a bit of a doormat; she frustrated me with her lack of ability to stand up for herself. While her inability to find herself is the premise of the book, a strong romance only works for me if I'm invested in the characters, and I just didn't always feel it with Holland and Calvin. Holland was too wishy washy and I never felt like I got to know Calvin enough. It was frustrating, because I could see moments of humor in the book, but never enough to truly win me over. I needed more to fully root for the couple. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book: it's cute and fun at times, and an easy read.
Overall, I had a tough time warming up to the main characters, and I didn't always find the funny situations that humorous. The premise was a little crazy, but was engaging enough. I'll be curious to see how I feel about my next Christina Lauren read.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated I'll Be Home for Christmas in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Christmas can be a very difficult time for many people, especially if they are homeless. A selection of well known YA authors including Holly Bourne, Melvin Burgess and Marcus Sedgwick, have come together to produce an anthology of short stories that explore the idea of “home” during this festive period. Only a couple of the tales are about people living on the streets, however that does not mean those with a roof over their head necessarily have a home.
Once published, £1 of every copy of<i> I’ll Be Home for Christmas </i>sold will be donated to the British charity Crisis, an organization that offer their services to individual homeless citizens. They work all year round but advertise more heavily at Christmas. It is their hope that this book will increase awareness of homelessness and result in an increase of generosities this winter.
The fourteen short stories in this anthology all provide a different meaning of the word “home.” For some it is about having somewhere to live, for others it is about family, love and safety. The key connection between each author’s interpretations is the main character is unhappy or worried and does not feel a sense of home. A few tales result in a happy ending; unfortunately others are not fully resolved. Apart from a couple that take a sci-fi/fantasy direction, the authors have tried to keep their narratives as true to life in order to emphasise the problems many people in the UK, if not the world, face at Christmas and the year in general.
Being targeted at a young adult audience, most of the characters are in their late teens, dealing with issues that sadly many teenagers and children are faced with today. The same themes crop up in many of the stories, such as homosexuality, divorce, family or lack of, and the feeling of loneliness.
As stories go, the individual tales are nothing special. They are not exciting or gripping, as you would expect a novel to be, however some of the scenarios will stick with you long after turning the final page. Although set at Christmas time, these stories are not overly festive, largely due to the negativity the characters are facing. Even if you do not particularly enjoy the tales, it will not be a waste of time reading them. They will leave you with a greater awareness to the struggles of others during a time when “home” plays a vital part in people’s lives. Crisis hopes that the general public will become more mindful and willing to help out in the near future.
Christmas can be a very difficult time for many people, especially if they are homeless. A selection of well known YA authors including Holly Bourne, Melvin Burgess and Marcus Sedgwick, have come together to produce an anthology of short stories that explore the idea of “home” during this festive period. Only a couple of the tales are about people living on the streets, however that does not mean those with a roof over their head necessarily have a home.
Once published, £1 of every copy of<i> I’ll Be Home for Christmas </i>sold will be donated to the British charity Crisis, an organization that offer their services to individual homeless citizens. They work all year round but advertise more heavily at Christmas. It is their hope that this book will increase awareness of homelessness and result in an increase of generosities this winter.
The fourteen short stories in this anthology all provide a different meaning of the word “home.” For some it is about having somewhere to live, for others it is about family, love and safety. The key connection between each author’s interpretations is the main character is unhappy or worried and does not feel a sense of home. A few tales result in a happy ending; unfortunately others are not fully resolved. Apart from a couple that take a sci-fi/fantasy direction, the authors have tried to keep their narratives as true to life in order to emphasise the problems many people in the UK, if not the world, face at Christmas and the year in general.
Being targeted at a young adult audience, most of the characters are in their late teens, dealing with issues that sadly many teenagers and children are faced with today. The same themes crop up in many of the stories, such as homosexuality, divorce, family or lack of, and the feeling of loneliness.
As stories go, the individual tales are nothing special. They are not exciting or gripping, as you would expect a novel to be, however some of the scenarios will stick with you long after turning the final page. Although set at Christmas time, these stories are not overly festive, largely due to the negativity the characters are facing. Even if you do not particularly enjoy the tales, it will not be a waste of time reading them. They will leave you with a greater awareness to the struggles of others during a time when “home” plays a vital part in people’s lives. Crisis hopes that the general public will become more mindful and willing to help out in the near future.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Echoes of Fear (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Alisa sees her last family die suddenly, she must head back to the house where she was raised to decide what to do with it next in what seems like a routine, tidy up and sale plan. Her plans are thrown off when she starts hearing noises, suffering nightmares and experiencing visions, which leads to her wanting to learn the truth, going through the house to unlock the truth, which each clue becoming more disturbing for her. Steph is the best friend that can visit at times and will help her with the investigation. Brandon is the boyfriend who is happy to help plan the changes, looking for a quick sell and start of a new life. David is the neighbour that does offer a few answers and is willing to help Alisa with any problems.
Performances – Trista Robinson is the star of the show, she is the one getting haunted, trying to solve the problems she is experiencing and you believe every moment she is going through. Nobody else is getting too much outside the simple to do, with none of them doing anything wrong through the film.
Story – The story here follows a relative that inherits a home and soon starts getting haunted by the ghosts of the house, leading her to try and solve the situation. This is a story that does keep us wondering what is going on with us learning more just as Alisa does, which is why this story works so well, because it enters the most interesting sub-genre of horror, with the haunting helping unlock the mystery. We could have a couple of questionable moments including a bit of miss-direction when it comes to what could be going on, this doesn’t really add up, but is nice to guide us away from the truth. This story does try to break certain rules created and does a wonderful job at this too, but lets just ask, why is there a sniffer mouse?
Horror – The horror side of the film does use a couple of ideas, with the haunting being the biggest moments, while others come off more disturbing by the end.
Settings – The film does keep most of the action inside the house, being a location, that Alisa would know, but hasn’t been to in a while, with he changes adding to the horror of the film.
Special Effects – The effects are used to create certain moments of horror, which most coming in the haunting moments.
Scene of the Movie – The final 20 minutes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The sniffer mouse is very strange.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does keep us guessing, it has a disturbing outcome with the haunting being the highlight of the scares.
Overall: Horror with Plenty of Scares.
Performances – Trista Robinson is the star of the show, she is the one getting haunted, trying to solve the problems she is experiencing and you believe every moment she is going through. Nobody else is getting too much outside the simple to do, with none of them doing anything wrong through the film.
Story – The story here follows a relative that inherits a home and soon starts getting haunted by the ghosts of the house, leading her to try and solve the situation. This is a story that does keep us wondering what is going on with us learning more just as Alisa does, which is why this story works so well, because it enters the most interesting sub-genre of horror, with the haunting helping unlock the mystery. We could have a couple of questionable moments including a bit of miss-direction when it comes to what could be going on, this doesn’t really add up, but is nice to guide us away from the truth. This story does try to break certain rules created and does a wonderful job at this too, but lets just ask, why is there a sniffer mouse?
Horror – The horror side of the film does use a couple of ideas, with the haunting being the biggest moments, while others come off more disturbing by the end.
Settings – The film does keep most of the action inside the house, being a location, that Alisa would know, but hasn’t been to in a while, with he changes adding to the horror of the film.
Special Effects – The effects are used to create certain moments of horror, which most coming in the haunting moments.
Scene of the Movie – The final 20 minutes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The sniffer mouse is very strange.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does keep us guessing, it has a disturbing outcome with the haunting being the highlight of the scares.
Overall: Horror with Plenty of Scares.