Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Midsommar is listed as "drama, horror, mystery" on IMDb, and you know how I am with horror... but honestly, this is such a bad categorisation to me. If anything it's a psychological drama/thriller. I found nothing in it to be horror-worthy and I definitely wasn't scared at any point. We should probably just create a genre of "weird AF" and put it in that.
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1977 I remember going into the original Cine Capri to see “Star Wars” with some friends. I was very young but little did I know that movie would change my life and put me on the path that I am now. Over the decades that have followed I have read the books and comics, played with the toys, played the video games, and eagerly watched any new film or television show related to the franchise.
The fact that Disney has put out a new film every years since “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is great for fans like me as those three year waits; to say nothing of the 17+ years between the Original and Prequel Trilogies were tough.
Through it all my favorite character has always been Han Solo. I do not know what it is but the brash, cocky, money loving; scoundrel who gets in and out of trouble yet does the right thing in the end has always connected with me.
So when news came that there would be a new movie based on the early years of the title characters I was excited but concerned as Harrison Ford is so iconic in that role I could not see how anyone could measure up.
Combine that with original Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller being removed from the film after shooting a significant number of weeks, there was ample concern to go around.
Fortunately for fans, Director Ron Howard has crafted a very enjoyable film as “Han Solo: A Star Wars Story” deftly combines the action, visuals, and humor that made the films cinematic legends and in doing so introduces new characters and expands the lore of the Star Wars Universe.
The film follows a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who hustles to survive and get off the world of Corrilia.
Han like many kids on the street pull all sorts of scams under the control of various criminals and he plots to escape with his friend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke).
When an opportunity arises, Han takes it, but finds himself in the Imperial Navy which does not bode well for a person with strong opinions and a mind of his own.
Fate steps in once again and introduces Han to Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), and a mentor figure in the form of a man named Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Han attempts to prove himself to his new crew as he sees this as his way out to a better life. However with things take a turn for the worse, he must work with his new associates to clear the slate with a deadly crime boss named Dry’den Vos (Paul Bettany).
As anyone who follows the series knows Han has a way of escalating a situation and this leads the crew to recruiting Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), into the crew as they set off to pull off a risky and dangerous mission to get the much needed resources to save their lives.
What follows is a very enjoyable film that has an appropriate amount of humor and character building as well as plenty of good action and effects which should keep fans of the series happy. The new characters were very enjoyable and added a new depth to Han as well as the Star Wars mythos but what really impressed me was that at no time did I find myself comparing Ehrenreich to Harrison Ford. He was charismatic and enjoyable in the role and I easily believed that this was Han before life, the universe, and circumstances turned him into the man we would know years later.
Glover is uncanny with his version of Lando and he at times almost sounded like Billy Dee Williams and had many of the mannerisms of the character down His back and forth with Han was great to see and we got a much deeper understand of both the characters and their complicated history with one another.
Clark and Harrelson round things out well as they provide a great balance to Han. One is a mentor and one is the link to the life he had and the dreams he wants to achieve. Ron Howard moves things along well without rushing things as while it does take a bit of time getting up to speed, it happens at a natural pace without seeming rushed. Howard also does not rely on an abundance of effects to carry the film. There are plenty of practical FX and makeup creations to make you well aware that this is a vast and diverse galaxy but he uses them and the CGI to enhance the story rather than carry it.
There are numerous nods throughout to past films as well both visual and verbal and a few great surprises along the way. It is believed that more adventures of the younger Han will be coming in the future and I cannot wait for them to arrive as this was a very fun film. Now the only hard part will be the 19 month wait for Episode IX as the five month wait from the last film already seems like ages ago and I cannot wait for more.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/15/solo-a-star-wars-story/
The fact that Disney has put out a new film every years since “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is great for fans like me as those three year waits; to say nothing of the 17+ years between the Original and Prequel Trilogies were tough.
Through it all my favorite character has always been Han Solo. I do not know what it is but the brash, cocky, money loving; scoundrel who gets in and out of trouble yet does the right thing in the end has always connected with me.
So when news came that there would be a new movie based on the early years of the title characters I was excited but concerned as Harrison Ford is so iconic in that role I could not see how anyone could measure up.
Combine that with original Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller being removed from the film after shooting a significant number of weeks, there was ample concern to go around.
Fortunately for fans, Director Ron Howard has crafted a very enjoyable film as “Han Solo: A Star Wars Story” deftly combines the action, visuals, and humor that made the films cinematic legends and in doing so introduces new characters and expands the lore of the Star Wars Universe.
The film follows a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who hustles to survive and get off the world of Corrilia.
Han like many kids on the street pull all sorts of scams under the control of various criminals and he plots to escape with his friend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke).
When an opportunity arises, Han takes it, but finds himself in the Imperial Navy which does not bode well for a person with strong opinions and a mind of his own.
Fate steps in once again and introduces Han to Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), and a mentor figure in the form of a man named Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Han attempts to prove himself to his new crew as he sees this as his way out to a better life. However with things take a turn for the worse, he must work with his new associates to clear the slate with a deadly crime boss named Dry’den Vos (Paul Bettany).
As anyone who follows the series knows Han has a way of escalating a situation and this leads the crew to recruiting Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), into the crew as they set off to pull off a risky and dangerous mission to get the much needed resources to save their lives.
What follows is a very enjoyable film that has an appropriate amount of humor and character building as well as plenty of good action and effects which should keep fans of the series happy. The new characters were very enjoyable and added a new depth to Han as well as the Star Wars mythos but what really impressed me was that at no time did I find myself comparing Ehrenreich to Harrison Ford. He was charismatic and enjoyable in the role and I easily believed that this was Han before life, the universe, and circumstances turned him into the man we would know years later.
Glover is uncanny with his version of Lando and he at times almost sounded like Billy Dee Williams and had many of the mannerisms of the character down His back and forth with Han was great to see and we got a much deeper understand of both the characters and their complicated history with one another.
Clark and Harrelson round things out well as they provide a great balance to Han. One is a mentor and one is the link to the life he had and the dreams he wants to achieve. Ron Howard moves things along well without rushing things as while it does take a bit of time getting up to speed, it happens at a natural pace without seeming rushed. Howard also does not rely on an abundance of effects to carry the film. There are plenty of practical FX and makeup creations to make you well aware that this is a vast and diverse galaxy but he uses them and the CGI to enhance the story rather than carry it.
There are numerous nods throughout to past films as well both visual and verbal and a few great surprises along the way. It is believed that more adventures of the younger Han will be coming in the future and I cannot wait for them to arrive as this was a very fun film. Now the only hard part will be the 19 month wait for Episode IX as the five month wait from the last film already seems like ages ago and I cannot wait for more.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/15/solo-a-star-wars-story/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) has developed a reputation for having one of the most brilliant crime solving minds of his time. Along with his partner, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), there is rarely ever a time when a case goes unsolved or a suspect is able to get the best of the two of them. However, that very well may be the case this time around. Holmes and Watson were able to apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is believed to be a master of black magic. Blackwood is hanged and that is thought to be the end of it until he returns from the grave. Somehow Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), an adversary of Holmes who he not only has feelings for but has gotten the best of him on more than one occasion, is wrapped up in all of this. Not to mention that the Blackwood case was supposed to be Watson's last as he settles down to get married. So Holmes takes the case to try and solve Blackwood's resurrection, figure out how Irene is involved, and convince Watson to stay on as his partner. What he doesn't count on is walking away from this case with an adversary that's just as cunning and brilliant as he is.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
With all the recent big action blockbuster movie releases recently, there is a genre that has been overlooked for some time, a good detective story. Most movies that take place in the 50’s tend to focus more on mob related backdrops and ruthless hits to draw in audiences. Motherless Brooklyn written, directed and starring Edward Norton looks to tell a story that harkens back to the day where gumshoes spoke to key individuals and followed the clues to get to the bottom of the case. This is long before forensics was a thing, and there were no fancy computer databases or DNA matching to utilize to narrow down the suspect pool. This was when it took the skills and abilities of the individual themselves to follow the clues and piece them together like a puzzle to solve each and every case.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Wish You Were Here in Tabletop Games
Nov 3, 2020
I thought I was smart. I thought my wife was smarter. I thought that combined, we would have a great shot at figuring out anything thrown at us. Then The Enigma Emporium threw Wish You Were Here at us, and now we feel the American school system has failed us miserably. The level of defeat we feel is immense and can only hope to redeem ourselves during the next game.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.