Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jan 14, 2018
Having seen Dunkirk during the summer, I was at least partially familiar with Churchill's involvement in that action and its harrowing context within the realm of WWII.
This film focuses partially on that, but more on Churchill's doubt within himself and his party he can faithfully executive the weight of being Prime Minister during the "darkest" of times and having to make the hard decisions especially involving many human lives and the possible ultimate fate of his country itself.
Obviously, this film is mainly a character study of Churchill and Gary Oldman's transformation into him. The make up is astounding as is his portrayal. Only occasionally do you see glimpses of the cranky Oldman we know from other films like Air Force One, Bram Stoker's Dracula and JFK. Otherwise his submersion into the character is complete.
I was unaware of the doubt the country and some of its key leaders had in Churchill, so this made for an interesting watch.
I thought the film maybe could have been 10-15 minutes shorter, but this is a mild complaint for an otherwise masterful film with beautiful direction with both the art direction and cinematography shining brightly.
Highly recommended.
This film focuses partially on that, but more on Churchill's doubt within himself and his party he can faithfully executive the weight of being Prime Minister during the "darkest" of times and having to make the hard decisions especially involving many human lives and the possible ultimate fate of his country itself.
Obviously, this film is mainly a character study of Churchill and Gary Oldman's transformation into him. The make up is astounding as is his portrayal. Only occasionally do you see glimpses of the cranky Oldman we know from other films like Air Force One, Bram Stoker's Dracula and JFK. Otherwise his submersion into the character is complete.
I was unaware of the doubt the country and some of its key leaders had in Churchill, so this made for an interesting watch.
I thought the film maybe could have been 10-15 minutes shorter, but this is a mild complaint for an otherwise masterful film with beautiful direction with both the art direction and cinematography shining brightly.
Highly recommended.
CarlaM (53 KP) rated Devil's Dream: Shade of Devil Book 1 in Books
Oct 30, 2019
Eat your Heart out Drac! Sorin is back!
Before Dracula ever tasted his first drop of Blood, Sorin Owned the night. After centuries of Drenching Europe in blood, he Grew weary of the Carnage and left to discover the new world, only to be tracked down by an old enemy. Sorin survives the Attack but only by being put into a healing slumber....and wakes up 500 years later in Present day New York and that is where our adventures begins.
I found this book endlessly pleasing. Sorin is out to make New friends and he meets some very interesting characters along the way. Although he has some classic Vampire broodiness, he does not conform to the new age definition of sparkly "vegetarian" Vampires. He is unapologetically brutal to his enemies and trying to come to terms with a world he doesn't understand. It makes for a funny action packed book filled with witty one liners and funny scenarios.
It was a true page turner and I loved Every minute of it.
I really can't wait for the next book!
I found this book endlessly pleasing. Sorin is out to make New friends and he meets some very interesting characters along the way. Although he has some classic Vampire broodiness, he does not conform to the new age definition of sparkly "vegetarian" Vampires. He is unapologetically brutal to his enemies and trying to come to terms with a world he doesn't understand. It makes for a funny action packed book filled with witty one liners and funny scenarios.
It was a true page turner and I loved Every minute of it.
I really can't wait for the next book!
Rhys (240 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Jun 30, 2018 (Updated Jul 7, 2018)
Contains spoilers, click to show
‘The Outsider’ is a crime/horror novel of four distinct parts. The first is the murder and investigation described in the blurb. This part is more traditionally crime novel than horror and introduces the main characters, giving them all distinct personalities and building up to the twist. Part two takes place after said twist (obviously, giving this away would destroy the enjoyment of the first part) and involves a new focus on the ‘antagonist’ of the third part: Ralph Anderson.
Part three introduces Holly, a character from the Finders Keepers books (that I have not read at this time) and continues for most of the book. This part is heavily inspired by several vampire novels and series including ‘Dracula’ and ‘The Strain’ but keeps a distinct Stephen King feeling.
(Part four is epilogue, which ties up loose ends and ensures that the characters who survive, as well as some who do not, have a happy ending.)
Previous King novels can feel forced, or full of ‘fluff’ that exists only to pad out the time between gruesome murders and intense horror. In this novel, every piece of dialogue has a purpose, whether to build on a character’s.... character... or to make the world seem more real, ground the supernatural in reality.
Despite what is said on the ‘bad’ section, this novel works well as a stand alone. Holly, the character that connects this to previous works, is written as though it will be a reader’s first encounter with her. She is built up from scratch and goes through development at the same rate as the other characters (her previous appearances are described enough that a reader will know the gist, but do not give away anything from the ‘Mr. Mercedes’ trilogy other than that Bill Hodges at some point dies.)
(For context, I am not a regular reader of King’s novels, having tried ‘It’ and ‘Insomnia’ but quickly loosing interest in both.)
Why not full marks? Around half way through the novel there is a scene that simply does not fit in with the rest of the story. The character that will eventually become King’s equivalent of Renfield from ‘Dracula’ meets the Outsider in the bathroom, with said character appropriately terrified. Why is this such an odd scene? Throughout the tense conversation (in which the Outsider’s powers are shown in full) Jack is suffering from an upset stomach (and King seems strangely obsessed with describing.) Horrible, yes, but horror it is not.
Overall, I would recommend this novel to a fan of Stephen King or to someone who wants to get into his writing.
Part three introduces Holly, a character from the Finders Keepers books (that I have not read at this time) and continues for most of the book. This part is heavily inspired by several vampire novels and series including ‘Dracula’ and ‘The Strain’ but keeps a distinct Stephen King feeling.
(Part four is epilogue, which ties up loose ends and ensures that the characters who survive, as well as some who do not, have a happy ending.)
Previous King novels can feel forced, or full of ‘fluff’ that exists only to pad out the time between gruesome murders and intense horror. In this novel, every piece of dialogue has a purpose, whether to build on a character’s.... character... or to make the world seem more real, ground the supernatural in reality.
Despite what is said on the ‘bad’ section, this novel works well as a stand alone. Holly, the character that connects this to previous works, is written as though it will be a reader’s first encounter with her. She is built up from scratch and goes through development at the same rate as the other characters (her previous appearances are described enough that a reader will know the gist, but do not give away anything from the ‘Mr. Mercedes’ trilogy other than that Bill Hodges at some point dies.)
(For context, I am not a regular reader of King’s novels, having tried ‘It’ and ‘Insomnia’ but quickly loosing interest in both.)
Why not full marks? Around half way through the novel there is a scene that simply does not fit in with the rest of the story. The character that will eventually become King’s equivalent of Renfield from ‘Dracula’ meets the Outsider in the bathroom, with said character appropriately terrified. Why is this such an odd scene? Throughout the tense conversation (in which the Outsider’s powers are shown in full) Jack is suffering from an upset stomach (and King seems strangely obsessed with describing.) Horrible, yes, but horror it is not.
Overall, I would recommend this novel to a fan of Stephen King or to someone who wants to get into his writing.
LucyB (47 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Jul 23, 2017
Best classic horror story - by a mile
MY ALL TIME FAVOURITE! If it wasn't awesome enough that this was written by a woman in the 1800s (let's face it - a bit of an achievement in itself), this is one of the most genuinely unsettling books ever written.
The true magic of this book lies in its underlying theme- the notion of 'reaching too far' and trying to beat nature. Throughout, there are men trying to achieve unnatural things, and the book illustrates beautifully the dire consequences of doing so. As for Frankenstein's creature - every time I read this book, he completely breaks my heart; and he serves to highlight the shallowness of the humans around him. Yes, admittedly, he's a murderer... but it's testament to Shelley's skill that she makes us understand what drove him to it.
I love the origins of the book too - Shelley's writing competition at Lake Geneva (is that the right lake?) where she pitted her talents against Lord Byron, John Polidori and her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley... you can just imagine that dark night, and all those amazing writers trying to outdo each other with their horror stories!
Love every aspect of this book. Yes, Dracula and Dr Jekyll / Mr Hyde are also fabulous, but for me, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the pinnacle of gothic horror.
The true magic of this book lies in its underlying theme- the notion of 'reaching too far' and trying to beat nature. Throughout, there are men trying to achieve unnatural things, and the book illustrates beautifully the dire consequences of doing so. As for Frankenstein's creature - every time I read this book, he completely breaks my heart; and he serves to highlight the shallowness of the humans around him. Yes, admittedly, he's a murderer... but it's testament to Shelley's skill that she makes us understand what drove him to it.
I love the origins of the book too - Shelley's writing competition at Lake Geneva (is that the right lake?) where she pitted her talents against Lord Byron, John Polidori and her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley... you can just imagine that dark night, and all those amazing writers trying to outdo each other with their horror stories!
Love every aspect of this book. Yes, Dracula and Dr Jekyll / Mr Hyde are also fabulous, but for me, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the pinnacle of gothic horror.
Awix (3310 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Oct 10, 2018
The story that's been resurrected more times than Dracula is back again, this time with Bradley Cooper as troubled country-rocker Jackson Maine, and Lady Gaga as the aspiring singer-songwriter who starts off as his protege/girlfriend but whose talent threatens to eclipse his. Better bring your hankies (or some kind of absorbent cloth, anyway).
Well, the good news is that Cooper can sing and Gaga can act, so the film hangs together as a dramatic musical, but it's still probably at its best when Cooper is acting and Gaga is singing. Some of the songs are absolutely lovely, but to be quite honest, the film goes on a bit too long, especially the wallowing-in-existential-misery stuff near the end. It's also made quite clear from the opening moments that Cooper's character has problems, so the story kind of comes across as one last detour on the way down than a genuine romantic tragedy.
Still, well acted, well sung, convincing stuff: the kind of old-fashioned meaty melodrama that often does very well for itself both critically and commercially, though it may have come out a bit too early to really storm the Oscars next year. Brace yourself for a remake of The Bodyguard with Katy Perry or Taylor Swift, I shouldn't wonder.
Well, the good news is that Cooper can sing and Gaga can act, so the film hangs together as a dramatic musical, but it's still probably at its best when Cooper is acting and Gaga is singing. Some of the songs are absolutely lovely, but to be quite honest, the film goes on a bit too long, especially the wallowing-in-existential-misery stuff near the end. It's also made quite clear from the opening moments that Cooper's character has problems, so the story kind of comes across as one last detour on the way down than a genuine romantic tragedy.
Still, well acted, well sung, convincing stuff: the kind of old-fashioned meaty melodrama that often does very well for itself both critically and commercially, though it may have come out a bit too early to really storm the Oscars next year. Brace yourself for a remake of The Bodyguard with Katy Perry or Taylor Swift, I shouldn't wonder.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Invisible Man (1933) in Movies
Mar 4, 2020
Universal Monster
This movie is such a classic, it came out after dracula, frankenstein and the mummy. Out of all the universal monster movies, i like this one the most. It combines sci-fi, horror, psychological espects, and overall the invisible man just being a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway. This classic movie is based off of a H.G. Wells novel, and if you dont know who that is, look him up..."The War of the Worlds".
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
I loved this edition of Dracula. Though I have not finished the novel itself, I have friends who have and they assured me that this does not leave much out.
The story itself was quite interesting. As one of the first full vampire novels, I can see how others have drawn inspiration from this book.
There were parts that I was not a fan of, that felt rushed, but as these are journal entries and letters, there would not be the drawn out narratives that would be there were it someone's novel.
The art was very well done. I loved the color uses and the playing with shadows to make it seem more foreboding. It was beautiful.
That being said, in this particular edition, some of the text was difficult to see. Because the artists were differentiating the writers by color and font, this made some of the combinations difficult to read. In particular, I found it difficult to read Mina's writing. Since it was pink on pink with a cursive type font, everything looked jumbled together and was just, in general, difficult to read.
That is the main reason I gave it two stars off, though I actually give this book a 3.5. I liked the story and I am excited to actually pick up and read the full novel, hopefully soon, to see if I can mark the differences between the two.
The story itself was quite interesting. As one of the first full vampire novels, I can see how others have drawn inspiration from this book.
There were parts that I was not a fan of, that felt rushed, but as these are journal entries and letters, there would not be the drawn out narratives that would be there were it someone's novel.
The art was very well done. I loved the color uses and the playing with shadows to make it seem more foreboding. It was beautiful.
That being said, in this particular edition, some of the text was difficult to see. Because the artists were differentiating the writers by color and font, this made some of the combinations difficult to read. In particular, I found it difficult to read Mina's writing. Since it was pink on pink with a cursive type font, everything looked jumbled together and was just, in general, difficult to read.
That is the main reason I gave it two stars off, though I actually give this book a 3.5. I liked the story and I am excited to actually pick up and read the full novel, hopefully soon, to see if I can mark the differences between the two.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Luc Horvathova (60 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Oct 22, 2019
Gripping, entertaining well written master piece
Contains spoilers, click to show
The book is written in form of letters and diaries. It starts in Dracula's castle in Transylvania as Harker, the estate agent is going through the sale of some properties over in England. His good relationship with count starts to crumble as some weird things start happening and the place he's staying gets really scary. After the transaction is over and Harker is free to go home, he collapses on the way and gets submitted into the hospital. Meanwhile story starts explaining the relationship of his fiancé Mina and her best friend Lucy. Lucy is choosing her future husband while getting really sick for an unknown reason. Her sleep walking and getting pale and lifeless worries Mina. Lucy's future husband seeks help at his friend psychiatrist who calls his old friend Van Helsing. Meanwhile in psychiatric institute one of the patients behaves very strangely, specially at night time. Lucy's condition gets really bad and eventually she dies, breaking everyone's heart. In the same time Mina meets her sick fiance and get married moving into their new home. After Lucy's death she meets Van Helsing And others and together they figure out that count Dracula is behind this all. As much as vampires are scary, the group is determined to kill count under any circumstances. One of the last losses is Mina getting into Dracula's hands and slowly turning into vampire herself. The hunt begins to be very serious and our friends are getting very desperate...how does the story ends, it's up to you to find out by reading this masterpiece.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Horrified: Universal Monsters Strategy Board Game in Tabletop Games
Oct 31, 2020
Horrified is a co-op board game based on the beloved Universal Monsters properties, and it's pretty damn fun.
First off, I love this series of movies. I recently bought a Blu-Ray boxset of them that I've been slowly working through, and they are still as entertaining now as they were when I was a kid.
Horrified pits 2-5 players against a selection of these horror icons, requiring them to complete character specific tasks before ultimately attempting to defeat whichever beast chosen, saving villagers along the way.
The roster is made up of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and his Bride, The Wolfman, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Each monster brings different objectives to the table in order to slay them, adding a large amount of variety to multiple games.
You can also play around with the amount of monsters you take on at once, adding different levels of difficulty to proceedings.
At first glance, the rules and many game pieces can seen overwhelming, but once the understanding sets in (there's an extremely handy tutorial video on the games official YouTube channel), it's a fun and sometimes tense experience, that is easy enough for any player to grasp.
It really does rely heavily on co-op and strategy to secure a victory, if you don't work together, then death is all but guaranteed!
I would happily recommend Horrified to any board game fan, especially those who like a bit of horror thrown in for good measure.
A huge thank you to @Smashbomb for sending me this via a giveaway (seriously go and apply to them!). Nice one!
First off, I love this series of movies. I recently bought a Blu-Ray boxset of them that I've been slowly working through, and they are still as entertaining now as they were when I was a kid.
Horrified pits 2-5 players against a selection of these horror icons, requiring them to complete character specific tasks before ultimately attempting to defeat whichever beast chosen, saving villagers along the way.
The roster is made up of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and his Bride, The Wolfman, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Each monster brings different objectives to the table in order to slay them, adding a large amount of variety to multiple games.
You can also play around with the amount of monsters you take on at once, adding different levels of difficulty to proceedings.
At first glance, the rules and many game pieces can seen overwhelming, but once the understanding sets in (there's an extremely handy tutorial video on the games official YouTube channel), it's a fun and sometimes tense experience, that is easy enough for any player to grasp.
It really does rely heavily on co-op and strategy to secure a victory, if you don't work together, then death is all but guaranteed!
I would happily recommend Horrified to any board game fan, especially those who like a bit of horror thrown in for good measure.
A huge thank you to @Smashbomb for sending me this via a giveaway (seriously go and apply to them!). Nice one!