Search
Search results
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about Death Had Quicker Wings Than Love by Marry Waterson & David A. Jaycock in Music
Nov 12, 2017
Rian Johnson recommended House of Games (1987) in Movies (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated It Follows (2015) in Movies
Jan 2, 2018
Terrifying
Perhaps It Follows could have done with a little more resolution. Or maybe it ended exactly where it was supposed to. Either way, the movie was flat-out phenomenal from start to finish.
After sleeping with a guy she has been dating for awhile, Jay (Maika Monroe) wakes up to find herself tied to a chair in an abandoned building. Her boyfriend explains to her that he has passed on to her a mark that will cause something horrific to come after her. She has to kill it before it kills her and comes after the others that have been marked.
It Follows opens with a girl bursting out of a home in her underclothes. She is frazzled and looks to be terrified by something. She runs home, grabs her car keys, and races for the beach. It's not two minutes in before we see what comes of this girl and the horrifying entity we will be dealing with in the film. Three minutes in and you're totally hooked.
Although director David Robert Mitchell confirmed that there is no set time period in which the movie takes place, both the setting and soundtrack gave me an 80's vibe a la "Stranger Things". I can't explain it, but the little touches--cord phone, small tube tv's, etc.--gave the film even more of an unsettling feel.
I can't tell you the number of times I had to leave my chair to hide out in the kitchen, watching the film from around a corner. What terrified me the most was not having any idea what was coming next. The entity antagonist literally could be anyone and could show up at anytime. Edge of my seat doesn't even begin to define it.
The movie benefits from both an interesting premise and a phenomenal performance from Monroe. I hope to see her again in more films, one of which I just added to my Movies 365 list: The Guest (2014)! I give It Follows a very well-deserved 97. See it.
After sleeping with a guy she has been dating for awhile, Jay (Maika Monroe) wakes up to find herself tied to a chair in an abandoned building. Her boyfriend explains to her that he has passed on to her a mark that will cause something horrific to come after her. She has to kill it before it kills her and comes after the others that have been marked.
It Follows opens with a girl bursting out of a home in her underclothes. She is frazzled and looks to be terrified by something. She runs home, grabs her car keys, and races for the beach. It's not two minutes in before we see what comes of this girl and the horrifying entity we will be dealing with in the film. Three minutes in and you're totally hooked.
Although director David Robert Mitchell confirmed that there is no set time period in which the movie takes place, both the setting and soundtrack gave me an 80's vibe a la "Stranger Things". I can't explain it, but the little touches--cord phone, small tube tv's, etc.--gave the film even more of an unsettling feel.
I can't tell you the number of times I had to leave my chair to hide out in the kitchen, watching the film from around a corner. What terrified me the most was not having any idea what was coming next. The entity antagonist literally could be anyone and could show up at anytime. Edge of my seat doesn't even begin to define it.
The movie benefits from both an interesting premise and a phenomenal performance from Monroe. I hope to see her again in more films, one of which I just added to my Movies 365 list: The Guest (2014)! I give It Follows a very well-deserved 97. See it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 7, 2020)
The third entry in the Scream franchise is a mixed bag to say the least. It takes everything that made the first two so enjoyable, and throws more of it at the audience, but unfortunately it just doesn't land as well as one would hope.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Thumbing Through Thoreau: A Book of Quotations by Henry David Thoreau in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The cover of the book is taken from a beautiful painting of Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts where Henry David Thoreau lived and wrote. Unfortunately, the artwork on nearly every page in the text is not nearly as attractive or colorful, and seems rather repetitious after 50 pages or so. According to the cover, Jay Luke's artwork is on the even-numbered pages and Ren Adam's artwork is on the odd-numbered pages, though truthfully I could not distinguish between the two artists' styles.
The book is divided into three sections that each of the quotes could be filed under: "Society & Government", "Spirituality & Nature", and "Love." The quotes that Kenny Luck compiled were indeed thought-provoking. When examining the collection as a whole, I could imagine the kind of man that wrote these words day in and day out. As Luck states: "This book... is my attempt to bring together the best pieces of Thoreau's writings in one collection." Before reading this book, I was not overly familiar with Thoreau's work, and afterwards I realized that the man Thoreau has much in common with my own husband. But I digress.
Some quotes were familiar, such as this one:
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Many more quotes were unfamiliar, but quite profound:
"I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown."
"What is it [to] be born free and equal, and not to live? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?"
"A written word is the choicest of relics."
"The day is an epitome of the year. The night is the winter, the morning and evening are the spring and fall, and the noon is the summer."
"I suspect that the child plucks its first flower awith an insight into its beauty and significance which the subsequent botanist never retains."
"To be married at least should be the one poetical act of a man's life."
"Love is a severe critic."
"The only way to speak the truth is to speak lovingly; only the lover's words are heard."
What I found especially distracting was how the words within each quote varied in font size and color, almost as if Luck did not trust the reader enough to know how to read the work and felt he had to dictate to the reader where the emphasis lay in each quote. While I can not say for sure if this was the aim, I felt like my intelligence was being belittled and undervalued as I flipped through the pages. Plus, these words are Thoreau's, not Kenny Luck's, and only Thoreau would be able to truly say where the emphasis within each sentence should be. Luck is only presuming to make intelligent guesses. While I respect Luck's obsession, which he describes in his introduction, I think he should allow for the words of Thoreau to stand alone, so that each reader can appreciate Thoreau through his or her own interpretation.
"The fact is I am a mystic, a transcendentalist, and a natural philosopher to boot."
The book is divided into three sections that each of the quotes could be filed under: "Society & Government", "Spirituality & Nature", and "Love." The quotes that Kenny Luck compiled were indeed thought-provoking. When examining the collection as a whole, I could imagine the kind of man that wrote these words day in and day out. As Luck states: "This book... is my attempt to bring together the best pieces of Thoreau's writings in one collection." Before reading this book, I was not overly familiar with Thoreau's work, and afterwards I realized that the man Thoreau has much in common with my own husband. But I digress.
Some quotes were familiar, such as this one:
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Many more quotes were unfamiliar, but quite profound:
"I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown."
"What is it [to] be born free and equal, and not to live? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?"
"A written word is the choicest of relics."
"The day is an epitome of the year. The night is the winter, the morning and evening are the spring and fall, and the noon is the summer."
"I suspect that the child plucks its first flower awith an insight into its beauty and significance which the subsequent botanist never retains."
"To be married at least should be the one poetical act of a man's life."
"Love is a severe critic."
"The only way to speak the truth is to speak lovingly; only the lover's words are heard."
What I found especially distracting was how the words within each quote varied in font size and color, almost as if Luck did not trust the reader enough to know how to read the work and felt he had to dictate to the reader where the emphasis lay in each quote. While I can not say for sure if this was the aim, I felt like my intelligence was being belittled and undervalued as I flipped through the pages. Plus, these words are Thoreau's, not Kenny Luck's, and only Thoreau would be able to truly say where the emphasis within each sentence should be. Luck is only presuming to make intelligent guesses. While I respect Luck's obsession, which he describes in his introduction, I think he should allow for the words of Thoreau to stand alone, so that each reader can appreciate Thoreau through his or her own interpretation.
"The fact is I am a mystic, a transcendentalist, and a natural philosopher to boot."
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.