Search
Search results
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted in Books
Mar 15, 2018
With movements like Black Lives Matter at the forefront of society right now, and multiple documentaries about wrongful convictions such as Steven Avery and The West Memphis Three out, there has never been a better time for this book to come out and be read. This topic is <i><b>so important.</i></b>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Old Guard (2020) in Movies
Aug 27, 2020
Kick Ass Action (2 more)
Good Casting and Supporting Actors/Characters
Cool Concept
The Musical Score/ Soundtrack (3 more)
Some characters were a little cliché
Characters not fully developed or given enough backstory
Dialogue
In With The Old Guard (7/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Old Guard is 2020 action movie directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood and written by Greg Rucka, The film was produced by Skydance Media, Denver and Delilah Productions and Marc Evans Productions and distributed by Netflix. Producers on the movie include David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, Don Granger, Charlize Theron, AJ Dix, Beth Kono and Marc Evans. The film stars Charlize Theron, Kiki Layne, Marwan Kenzari, Luca Marinelli and Matthias Schoenaerts.
Andy (Charlize Theron), and her covert group of tight-knit immortals have fought and protected the mortal world for centuries with their mysterious inability to die. With their extraordinary abilities suddenly exposed on an emergency mission, the group finds themselves hunted by those who will stop at nothing to replicate their power. Nile (Kiki Layne), the newest soldier, joins their ranks, to help the group eliminate the threat and avoid capture as they find out who's found them.
This move was pretty bad ass. I liked it quite a bit. Charlize Theron definitely kicks ass as Andy in this flick and has a bunch of really cool action sequences throughout the film. The supporting cast was really good as well. I hadn't heard of the graphic novel or comic that it was based off of by the film's writer Greg Rucka but now I really want to check it out because the backstory they give the characters and their actions seem really cool. Now I know a lot of people give the whole girl power thing bad energy online and a lot of stuff gets hate and trolls for stuff like that but I dig this film. (examples Captain Marvel, The girl power scene in Endgame, etc...) I definitely got that vibe that the director was a woman without even paying attention to it in the opening credits and that's not a bad thing, just an observation. The way certain things happened in the movie, the soundtrack (which was good but felt like it didn't match) and the two main characters/protagonists are female as well. I think Gina Prince-Bythewood did a great job in mixing in the story and the action in this movie. Of course when coming up with a cool concept like this there always going to be plot holes or things that don't make sense and this movie is no exception, some characters are a little cliché but there acting pretty good and their performances were good but the dialogue definitely suffered from the writing. There was some weird lines in there and some scenes that just kind of faltered. The villain wasn't that memorable and the film had some slow places, not that pacing was off but maybe dragged on a little too long. I think this movie was still great good though and if you're looking for a good action flick to check out you should definitely give it a try, I give it a 7/10.
Spoiler Section Review:
Man, I have seen this movie getting ripped on reviews online and a lot of it is actually on the soundtrack. Now I understand completely, to me the song choices were off for the mood or tone of the film from the beginning but I saw what "they" were going for because all the songs had a similar theme which was connected by women. It was one of the reasons I felt like the movie was directed by a woman before I looked it up. Now I didn't hate the music, I actually liked some of the songs but for some people I can understand how it distracts, how it lessens in a way the impact of the cinematography and graphic violence of the film. Also the plot holes and logic when it comes to cool concept like the one for this movie. Like when they heal, the bullets get pushed out of their body, but what about Andy's earrings? That's literally the only example of plot holes I've found in other reviews, but every review hating on it says that. Other people hated on it's "woke politics" whatever that means and cheap and lacking in most places. I'll admit that they dropped the ball on putting in decent enough backstory for the characters who were supposed to have live for hundreds of years. You would think they would have some good flashback scenes but they only show a couple and some are weird and blurry sometimes. They just really dropped the ball on developing the characters more or giving you a reason to like them or care about them. They're were the two gay guys but for some people that is a little cliché already because everyone movie is trying to be inclusive now so it comes off as unoriginal. I'll admit that Kiki Layne's performance could be better in certain scenes especially in the beginning some of the girl soldiers didn't seem like "real soldiers" whatever that means, lol. but didn't look the part or act the part. And even at the end her character totally just shifts into kill mode when the whole time she couldn't get over the first person she killed and we're supposed to believe that she believes in the cause the fight for now. I mean she has some good scenes too though. There's just a lot of convenience or hand of god ("deus ex machina") throughout the movie. It's hard for me to give this a higher score when some of the points against it are legitimate but I think some of them are just haters. Anyways I give this movie a 7/10 and I for one personally can't wait for the sequel.
Andy (Charlize Theron), and her covert group of tight-knit immortals have fought and protected the mortal world for centuries with their mysterious inability to die. With their extraordinary abilities suddenly exposed on an emergency mission, the group finds themselves hunted by those who will stop at nothing to replicate their power. Nile (Kiki Layne), the newest soldier, joins their ranks, to help the group eliminate the threat and avoid capture as they find out who's found them.
This move was pretty bad ass. I liked it quite a bit. Charlize Theron definitely kicks ass as Andy in this flick and has a bunch of really cool action sequences throughout the film. The supporting cast was really good as well. I hadn't heard of the graphic novel or comic that it was based off of by the film's writer Greg Rucka but now I really want to check it out because the backstory they give the characters and their actions seem really cool. Now I know a lot of people give the whole girl power thing bad energy online and a lot of stuff gets hate and trolls for stuff like that but I dig this film. (examples Captain Marvel, The girl power scene in Endgame, etc...) I definitely got that vibe that the director was a woman without even paying attention to it in the opening credits and that's not a bad thing, just an observation. The way certain things happened in the movie, the soundtrack (which was good but felt like it didn't match) and the two main characters/protagonists are female as well. I think Gina Prince-Bythewood did a great job in mixing in the story and the action in this movie. Of course when coming up with a cool concept like this there always going to be plot holes or things that don't make sense and this movie is no exception, some characters are a little cliché but there acting pretty good and their performances were good but the dialogue definitely suffered from the writing. There was some weird lines in there and some scenes that just kind of faltered. The villain wasn't that memorable and the film had some slow places, not that pacing was off but maybe dragged on a little too long. I think this movie was still great good though and if you're looking for a good action flick to check out you should definitely give it a try, I give it a 7/10.
Spoiler Section Review:
Man, I have seen this movie getting ripped on reviews online and a lot of it is actually on the soundtrack. Now I understand completely, to me the song choices were off for the mood or tone of the film from the beginning but I saw what "they" were going for because all the songs had a similar theme which was connected by women. It was one of the reasons I felt like the movie was directed by a woman before I looked it up. Now I didn't hate the music, I actually liked some of the songs but for some people I can understand how it distracts, how it lessens in a way the impact of the cinematography and graphic violence of the film. Also the plot holes and logic when it comes to cool concept like the one for this movie. Like when they heal, the bullets get pushed out of their body, but what about Andy's earrings? That's literally the only example of plot holes I've found in other reviews, but every review hating on it says that. Other people hated on it's "woke politics" whatever that means and cheap and lacking in most places. I'll admit that they dropped the ball on putting in decent enough backstory for the characters who were supposed to have live for hundreds of years. You would think they would have some good flashback scenes but they only show a couple and some are weird and blurry sometimes. They just really dropped the ball on developing the characters more or giving you a reason to like them or care about them. They're were the two gay guys but for some people that is a little cliché already because everyone movie is trying to be inclusive now so it comes off as unoriginal. I'll admit that Kiki Layne's performance could be better in certain scenes especially in the beginning some of the girl soldiers didn't seem like "real soldiers" whatever that means, lol. but didn't look the part or act the part. And even at the end her character totally just shifts into kill mode when the whole time she couldn't get over the first person she killed and we're supposed to believe that she believes in the cause the fight for now. I mean she has some good scenes too though. There's just a lot of convenience or hand of god ("deus ex machina") throughout the movie. It's hard for me to give this a higher score when some of the points against it are legitimate but I think some of them are just haters. Anyways I give this movie a 7/10 and I for one personally can't wait for the sequel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2019
Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/ Captain America
RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron man
Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes
Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-man
Chadwick Boseman as Black panther/Tchalla (1 more)
The Airport fight scene
The climatic three-way battle
Zemo is a fantastic villian brilliantly played by Daniel Bruhl
Feels like a Captain America movie
Giant-Man is awesome,so is Paul Rudd
Mission Report, December 16, 1991
"Captain America: Civil War" is not only the best "Captain America" movie yet, but it may just be at the very top of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, due to it's emotionally satisfying themes. That may seem like extremely high praise, so I will explain why I believe that to be true, as well as why I think this is the most mature Marvel film to this point. Loosely following the events of both "Captain America: The Winter Solider" and "Avengers: Age of Ultron," while still harking back to previous films from this universe, this 13th installment in the ever growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, follows the team on different paths as they are once again pulled together.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)