Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game (Book 1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog at <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I really, really thought the synopsis of The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game by Guy T. Simpson Jr. sounded very interesting. This was a book that I knew I would have to read. Luckily, I was able to read it, and it was very interesting!
The Fraiser boys lose their favourite uncle in car crash on Friday the thirteenth. After the accident, weird things start happening so the boys consult a spirit board. Is the spirit board helping the boys or is it actually evil? Also, Drake learns through a dream that he is destined to be a king and a leader. Will Drake live long enough to see that day?
I think the author picked a fantastic title for his book!! A lot of people consider a spirit board a game, so I believe this is where the deadliest game bit comes in.
I'm not overly keen on the cover of this book. I mean, it fits the book as it's a photo of the Fraiser boys wither their uncle Wally, but it's just too plain for my liking. However, this could just be a personal thing since I'm a harsh judge of covers.
The world building was done fantastically well!! The setting (1978-1979) was quite believable. I wasn't around at that time, but although there's not really many references about it being the late 70's besides the chapter telling you. I could imagine myself being part of this whole story!
The pacing was really good. Each chapter was full of action and suspense, and I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. The chapters flow into each other, and not once did I find myself bored whilst reading this story.
For a middle grade read, I'd say that there were some words that might be hard for younger kids to understand, and to be honest, there were some big words I didn't understand. Context clues are important sometimes to figure out what words mean in the story. I did feel that the two younger brothers spoke as if they were much older than eight and ten. There is mild swearing so it's not bad at all when it comes to bad language.
All the characters were well formed and each had their own unique personality which definitely shown through during the story. Martin is the oldest boy, and it's obvious by how much he looks after his younger brothers. Mark is the second oldest, followed by Drake who is the brainy one in the family. Dennis is ten and Albert is 8. As I said in the previous paragraph, the two youngest boys came across as being older then they actually were especially Dennis. However, besides that, they were all believable characters, and I'm sure we all have at least one friend who has one of the boys' personality.
I did feel that the last chapter in the book was a bit repetitive of what the story already told us. I didn't really learn anything I didn't know from the last chapter besides a mention of Wally. However, overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this story as it is very well-written. Oh, and I must say that I really enjoyed enjoy individual drawing at the beginning of each chapter!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 12+.
(I was provided a free ebook copy of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I really, really thought the synopsis of The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game by Guy T. Simpson Jr. sounded very interesting. This was a book that I knew I would have to read. Luckily, I was able to read it, and it was very interesting!
The Fraiser boys lose their favourite uncle in car crash on Friday the thirteenth. After the accident, weird things start happening so the boys consult a spirit board. Is the spirit board helping the boys or is it actually evil? Also, Drake learns through a dream that he is destined to be a king and a leader. Will Drake live long enough to see that day?
I think the author picked a fantastic title for his book!! A lot of people consider a spirit board a game, so I believe this is where the deadliest game bit comes in.
I'm not overly keen on the cover of this book. I mean, it fits the book as it's a photo of the Fraiser boys wither their uncle Wally, but it's just too plain for my liking. However, this could just be a personal thing since I'm a harsh judge of covers.
The world building was done fantastically well!! The setting (1978-1979) was quite believable. I wasn't around at that time, but although there's not really many references about it being the late 70's besides the chapter telling you. I could imagine myself being part of this whole story!
The pacing was really good. Each chapter was full of action and suspense, and I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. The chapters flow into each other, and not once did I find myself bored whilst reading this story.
For a middle grade read, I'd say that there were some words that might be hard for younger kids to understand, and to be honest, there were some big words I didn't understand. Context clues are important sometimes to figure out what words mean in the story. I did feel that the two younger brothers spoke as if they were much older than eight and ten. There is mild swearing so it's not bad at all when it comes to bad language.
All the characters were well formed and each had their own unique personality which definitely shown through during the story. Martin is the oldest boy, and it's obvious by how much he looks after his younger brothers. Mark is the second oldest, followed by Drake who is the brainy one in the family. Dennis is ten and Albert is 8. As I said in the previous paragraph, the two youngest boys came across as being older then they actually were especially Dennis. However, besides that, they were all believable characters, and I'm sure we all have at least one friend who has one of the boys' personality.
I did feel that the last chapter in the book was a bit repetitive of what the story already told us. I didn't really learn anything I didn't know from the last chapter besides a mention of Wally. However, overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this story as it is very well-written. Oh, and I must say that I really enjoyed enjoy individual drawing at the beginning of each chapter!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 12+.
(I was provided a free ebook copy of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hereditary (2018) in Movies
Jun 28, 2018
Laughable
For me, the hardest genre of film to get right is horror. In short order the filmmaker needs to set up the premise and "rules of engagement" of the world that is being presented and then execute incredulous situations and predicaments in such a way that are plausible and tense.
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Borat (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the funniest and most shockingly outrageous comedies in the history of film has arrived, and it is poised not only to make Sacha Baron Cohen a major star, but also ignite controversy. The film is Borat and it follows Cohen’s Kazakhstan news man, Borat, as he leaves his homeland to film a documentary in New York.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Invited in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Helen and Nate have a nice, settled life as teachers at a private school in Connecticut. But they also have aspirations for a simpler life. So using their savings and an inheritance, they buy 40+ acres in the tiny village of Hartsboro, Vermont and decide to build their own dream house themselves. Helen, a history teacher, wants a house and land with history--and she gets her wish when she discovers the story of Hattie Breckenridge, a woman who apparently lived (and died) on their property over a hundred years ago. Marked by the villagers as a witch, Hattie was killed, leaving behind her young daughter, Jane. Helen becomes fascinated with Hattie's past and begins trying to find out what happened to her--and her family members. But a series of more and more weird events start happening once they move in. Is it just the people of Hartsboro, who don't like outsiders? Or is it Hattie? And are Helen and Nate in danger?
I just love Jennifer McMahon's books and she's someone whom I will read anything they write. This was such a good book that drew me from the very beginning. I started it while on vacation in Vermont, so I was really excited that it happened to take place in Vermont--a place I'd never been until this year. McMahon's descriptive language makes it so easy to visualize her (often eerie) settings, as well as her characters.
Along with Helen and Nate, our slightly hippyish couple, we have Olive, a teenage girl from Hartsboro, and her dad and aunt, plus various Hartsboro townsfolk. Olive was a very compelling character; she's been abandoned by her mother and is teased and bullied terribly by her schoolmates, since the town all believes her mom ran off with another man. Her bereft father isn't much help, leaving her to raise herself or rely on her aunt. She has one friend, Mike, who is a good guy, but annoys our feisty heroine with his wimpy-ness. It's hard not to fall for Olive, believe me. Even Helen will grow on you, too. And no matter what, they are so easy to picture.
The novel is told from a variety of points of view, but mainly Olive and Helen. We learn a lot about each of them. As I said, it drew me in from the beginning and kept me reading. As with most of McMahon's books, it's layered with that creepy, mysterious edge. In many ways, it's a proper ghost story. But she always manages to write it so that instead of rolling your eyes, you feel a little creeped out, or find yourself looking over your shoulder at night. Hattie herself plays a really strong role in this book, and I liked how well the story set up the idea of how much people (and small towns) fear what they don't know.
"What people don't understand, they destroy."
It's funny, I could guess where a lot of this book was leading, yet it in no way diminished my enjoyment of it. I could see how that might annoy some, but it didn't bother me in the least. I was completely immersed in the characters, the eerie ghost story, and trying to piece together all the plot pieces. Hattie's story--and that of her descendants--is fascinating. There was just something about this book that I loved: that intangible piece that makes you a part of the story, keeps you flipping the pages, and makes you feel both sad and amazed when you finish the book. 4.5 stars.
I just love Jennifer McMahon's books and she's someone whom I will read anything they write. This was such a good book that drew me from the very beginning. I started it while on vacation in Vermont, so I was really excited that it happened to take place in Vermont--a place I'd never been until this year. McMahon's descriptive language makes it so easy to visualize her (often eerie) settings, as well as her characters.
Along with Helen and Nate, our slightly hippyish couple, we have Olive, a teenage girl from Hartsboro, and her dad and aunt, plus various Hartsboro townsfolk. Olive was a very compelling character; she's been abandoned by her mother and is teased and bullied terribly by her schoolmates, since the town all believes her mom ran off with another man. Her bereft father isn't much help, leaving her to raise herself or rely on her aunt. She has one friend, Mike, who is a good guy, but annoys our feisty heroine with his wimpy-ness. It's hard not to fall for Olive, believe me. Even Helen will grow on you, too. And no matter what, they are so easy to picture.
The novel is told from a variety of points of view, but mainly Olive and Helen. We learn a lot about each of them. As I said, it drew me in from the beginning and kept me reading. As with most of McMahon's books, it's layered with that creepy, mysterious edge. In many ways, it's a proper ghost story. But she always manages to write it so that instead of rolling your eyes, you feel a little creeped out, or find yourself looking over your shoulder at night. Hattie herself plays a really strong role in this book, and I liked how well the story set up the idea of how much people (and small towns) fear what they don't know.
"What people don't understand, they destroy."
It's funny, I could guess where a lot of this book was leading, yet it in no way diminished my enjoyment of it. I could see how that might annoy some, but it didn't bother me in the least. I was completely immersed in the characters, the eerie ghost story, and trying to piece together all the plot pieces. Hattie's story--and that of her descendants--is fascinating. There was just something about this book that I loved: that intangible piece that makes you a part of the story, keeps you flipping the pages, and makes you feel both sad and amazed when you finish the book. 4.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
It is hard to believe it has been ten years since audiences were introduced to the hysterical yet violent Post-Apocalypse world of Zombieland; but thankfully the crew is back again with the highly enjoyable “Zombieland: Double Tap”.
The story begins with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), bringing the audience up to speed on what has happened since the last film. The Zombies have evolved into different classes of abilities and Columbus and his ersatz family have taken up residence in The White House.
Columbus and Wichita (Emma Stone) are still dating; well at least as best as one can do in a Zombie Apocalypse which is painfully short on options. This situation does not seem to bother Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), as he is happy to work on his loaded vehicle dubbed “The Beast” but for Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), the situation has become intolerable.
Little Rock is eager to find someone to have a relationship with and when her frustrations combine with Wichita’s insecurities; the girls take off leaving the men to fend for themselves.
While Tallahassee has no issues with this, Columbus is a moping mess and even a trip to the local mall cannot lighten his mood. Things change when they meet the ditzy and clueless Madison (Zoey Deutch); who steals her scenes with her Clueless Pop Culture Princess who is as oblivious to their situation as a person can be.
When Wichita returns to tell them that Little Rock has run off with a guy she met, the crew load up and take to the road to save the day but are blissfully unaware of the new dangers waiting for them.
This is the rare sequel that is as good if not better than the original. The cast works very well with one another and the introduction of new characters brought some additional comedy to the film as well as enhancement to the action sequences.
While the film is at times very gory; it is done in a humorous way that balances the dangers the characters are in with a wink and smile to let the audience know that this is still an Action/Comedy that is light on the darkness and big on the levity.
The film has some great continuity with the original film without repeating itself as Columbus’s rules for survival still pop up when they are used and we also get some hysterical new updates to the coveted Zombie Kill of the Week.
Director Ruben Fleischer knows what audiences want and does a great job giving them more of what he gave them in the first film without being gratuitous or heavy handed with the material.
The new cast works well with the returning players especially Rosario Dawson and the previously mentioned Zoey Deutch who fit seamlessly into the comedic Zombie mayhem.
You will want to make sure to stay into the credits for a fantastic bonus scene which puts a great capper on the film which was one of the best times I have had at the movies in recent years and one of the better movies of 2019.
Hopefully this is not the last outing for the crew as I would love to see further adventures in Zombieland but hopefully we will not have to wait 10 years for the next chapter.
4 stars out of 5
The story begins with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), bringing the audience up to speed on what has happened since the last film. The Zombies have evolved into different classes of abilities and Columbus and his ersatz family have taken up residence in The White House.
Columbus and Wichita (Emma Stone) are still dating; well at least as best as one can do in a Zombie Apocalypse which is painfully short on options. This situation does not seem to bother Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), as he is happy to work on his loaded vehicle dubbed “The Beast” but for Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), the situation has become intolerable.
Little Rock is eager to find someone to have a relationship with and when her frustrations combine with Wichita’s insecurities; the girls take off leaving the men to fend for themselves.
While Tallahassee has no issues with this, Columbus is a moping mess and even a trip to the local mall cannot lighten his mood. Things change when they meet the ditzy and clueless Madison (Zoey Deutch); who steals her scenes with her Clueless Pop Culture Princess who is as oblivious to their situation as a person can be.
When Wichita returns to tell them that Little Rock has run off with a guy she met, the crew load up and take to the road to save the day but are blissfully unaware of the new dangers waiting for them.
This is the rare sequel that is as good if not better than the original. The cast works very well with one another and the introduction of new characters brought some additional comedy to the film as well as enhancement to the action sequences.
While the film is at times very gory; it is done in a humorous way that balances the dangers the characters are in with a wink and smile to let the audience know that this is still an Action/Comedy that is light on the darkness and big on the levity.
The film has some great continuity with the original film without repeating itself as Columbus’s rules for survival still pop up when they are used and we also get some hysterical new updates to the coveted Zombie Kill of the Week.
Director Ruben Fleischer knows what audiences want and does a great job giving them more of what he gave them in the first film without being gratuitous or heavy handed with the material.
The new cast works well with the returning players especially Rosario Dawson and the previously mentioned Zoey Deutch who fit seamlessly into the comedic Zombie mayhem.
You will want to make sure to stay into the credits for a fantastic bonus scene which puts a great capper on the film which was one of the best times I have had at the movies in recent years and one of the better movies of 2019.
Hopefully this is not the last outing for the crew as I would love to see further adventures in Zombieland but hopefully we will not have to wait 10 years for the next chapter.
4 stars out of 5
Natari (73 KP) rated Christmas At The Palace in Books
Jul 19, 2019
This book takes a very ordinary romance between two people and places it in an extraordinary circumstance. Boy meets girl, girl and boy fall in love. Ordinary. But boy is a prince of England and girl is a doctor in love with her career and charity work. But that isn't the only conflicts in this romance. They don't fall out over "PUTTING THE DISHES IN THE VICINITY OF THE DISHWASHER IS NOT DOING THE DISHES" like ordinary couples, but there are many ups and downs in their whirlwind romance. That is what makes the story fun to read. Stories need conflict, and human relationships provide such novelties aplenty in various guises.
But what makes this a great book is the sheer genuine interactions. It makes it pleasant, because you can believe the story. The couple are a little older, they aren't the rush of youth stumbling into a relationship, but wizened 30 year olds who are looking for more meaning in each other. It is very fast paced, and definitely a whirlwind romance spanning major milestones in the novel. However, the plot backs up the reasoning for this. You don't feel rushed. It's like a Sunday afternoon drive in bumper cars. Thrilling but relaxing.
The book is very obviously, and at times heavily, inspired by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan, with telling traits of other family members and situations. But it isn't a fictionalised version of their story. It is definitely Kumari's story, it is just set in our modern world.
Characters are well rounded and deep. I like the Goofball prince. He isn't your typical prince charming, he's quite blokey but loveable. Kumari is fantastic. I love her character and her rebellious resolve. She's mature and can be quite reserved, which helps her cope better with the extreme situation the book demands. I liked how her cultural attributes were used in the book. Not in the sense of the "scandal" that that led the plot, but in the natural fit of words like amma and thatha (Sri Lankan words for mother and father). Never explained, just in use. These things are so easily taken for granted in 'white person' literature. As the white girl dating a British guy whose parents migrated from abroad, I'm fortunate to understand the story from Prince Ben's point of view. Or rather, unfortunate, as the toxicity of Brexit campaigns are polluting the UK right now and we have to watch our loved ones bear the force of idiots. I hope more books with British heros of non-white backgrounds litter our library shelves and top reads at supermarkets more quickly. I very much want people to understand that people are people. And Christmas at the Palace makes this point so beautifully. It isn't being preached, it's just telling it like it is, for better or for worse.
My favourite character is Ophelia, whose story has been set up for a sequel. She's loud but polite and acts as if she is brash, but is terrifyingly calculating. She's wonderful.
All in all, the book was an easy, enjoyable read. Normally I read non-stop but life and work happened and I had to take frequent breaks. It was easy to do with Christmas at the Palace because there are sections that separate the major points of the story. If you don't always have a lot of time to read, this is a good recommendation as you can pick it up and continue and not be missing out or having to re-read passages.
But what makes this a great book is the sheer genuine interactions. It makes it pleasant, because you can believe the story. The couple are a little older, they aren't the rush of youth stumbling into a relationship, but wizened 30 year olds who are looking for more meaning in each other. It is very fast paced, and definitely a whirlwind romance spanning major milestones in the novel. However, the plot backs up the reasoning for this. You don't feel rushed. It's like a Sunday afternoon drive in bumper cars. Thrilling but relaxing.
The book is very obviously, and at times heavily, inspired by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan, with telling traits of other family members and situations. But it isn't a fictionalised version of their story. It is definitely Kumari's story, it is just set in our modern world.
Characters are well rounded and deep. I like the Goofball prince. He isn't your typical prince charming, he's quite blokey but loveable. Kumari is fantastic. I love her character and her rebellious resolve. She's mature and can be quite reserved, which helps her cope better with the extreme situation the book demands. I liked how her cultural attributes were used in the book. Not in the sense of the "scandal" that that led the plot, but in the natural fit of words like amma and thatha (Sri Lankan words for mother and father). Never explained, just in use. These things are so easily taken for granted in 'white person' literature. As the white girl dating a British guy whose parents migrated from abroad, I'm fortunate to understand the story from Prince Ben's point of view. Or rather, unfortunate, as the toxicity of Brexit campaigns are polluting the UK right now and we have to watch our loved ones bear the force of idiots. I hope more books with British heros of non-white backgrounds litter our library shelves and top reads at supermarkets more quickly. I very much want people to understand that people are people. And Christmas at the Palace makes this point so beautifully. It isn't being preached, it's just telling it like it is, for better or for worse.
My favourite character is Ophelia, whose story has been set up for a sequel. She's loud but polite and acts as if she is brash, but is terrifyingly calculating. She's wonderful.
All in all, the book was an easy, enjoyable read. Normally I read non-stop but life and work happened and I had to take frequent breaks. It was easy to do with Christmas at the Palace because there are sections that separate the major points of the story. If you don't always have a lot of time to read, this is a good recommendation as you can pick it up and continue and not be missing out or having to re-read passages.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Second Siege (The Tapestry, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a title="The Second Siege by Henry H. Neff" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-the-second-siege-by-henry-h-neff.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Owls
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste
In the second book to The Tapestry series, Astaroth has already been released from his confinement and is causing trouble in the outside world with his allies. Max McDaniels and his roommate David Menlo are traveling to different worlds on a quest to acquire the dangerous Book of Thoth before Astaroth gets to it first.
I'm sorry if I can't help but compare the series to Harry Potter (actually, I can't help but compare a lot of books to another book/series...). Both series are just so... similar in so many ways. It may sound ironic, but in my humble opinion, Astaroth isn't that... villainy. I mean, sure, he's cunning and evil when necessary, but I'm pretty sure that if Voldy and Astaroth had a face off, Voldy would probably crush him. Big time. Even if he's noseless. Basically because Voldy is evil 24/7.
<img src="http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll152/Contele_Draqula/VoldemortandDeathEaters.jpg"; width="200" height="143" />
On the other hand, Astaroth's "minions" are well... completely the opposite of the Death Eaters. The Death Eaters are pretty loyal, but there's always these little loose knots here and there when it comes to loyalty. Apparently, Astaroth's minions are too loyal to the demon, that there are practically no loose ends at all. One big happy family in taking over the world? Possibly... but don't take my word for granted. I may be wrong for all I know and all of his minions will soon overthrow him as leader of Malevolency.
In a nutshell, you can say I'm sadly disappointed that Astaroth just doesn't seem like a villain at certain times. I don't know. Maybe he'll be more evil later in the series, but for now, I think I'll categorize him a bit as Mr. Nice Guy. I'll nominate him as Dr. Evil II when he has more of the muahaha added in (okay, not exactly muahaha, but closer).
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OjrbRW6e1VE/THP3sett2tI/AAAAAAAAFBw/rsQC8kBELBw/s200/Dr_Evil.jpg"; />
So, the ending. Er, not exactly. Kind of a happy-sad ending, but not exactly an ending that will make me emotional that I'll need a Kleenex in hand and hide someplace so no one sees me crying, because if I get seen crying, it'll be as embarrassing as saying something in an awkward silence.. But I'm pretty glad that Max and his father saw someone they deeply cared for at least one more time after so many years. It's also not an ending where there's this lovely cliffhanger that keeps you at the edge of the seat, eager to read the next book.
As much as I hate cliffhangers, I just feel that there needs to be some sort of cliff waiting to catch more "victims" at the end when it comes to a series (maybe I'm so used to that frame of mind...), which I find missing in The Second Siege. Though hopefully I'm just missing that cliffhanger and just need to dig deeper...
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Owls
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste
In the second book to The Tapestry series, Astaroth has already been released from his confinement and is causing trouble in the outside world with his allies. Max McDaniels and his roommate David Menlo are traveling to different worlds on a quest to acquire the dangerous Book of Thoth before Astaroth gets to it first.
I'm sorry if I can't help but compare the series to Harry Potter (actually, I can't help but compare a lot of books to another book/series...). Both series are just so... similar in so many ways. It may sound ironic, but in my humble opinion, Astaroth isn't that... villainy. I mean, sure, he's cunning and evil when necessary, but I'm pretty sure that if Voldy and Astaroth had a face off, Voldy would probably crush him. Big time. Even if he's noseless. Basically because Voldy is evil 24/7.
<img src="http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll152/Contele_Draqula/VoldemortandDeathEaters.jpg"; width="200" height="143" />
On the other hand, Astaroth's "minions" are well... completely the opposite of the Death Eaters. The Death Eaters are pretty loyal, but there's always these little loose knots here and there when it comes to loyalty. Apparently, Astaroth's minions are too loyal to the demon, that there are practically no loose ends at all. One big happy family in taking over the world? Possibly... but don't take my word for granted. I may be wrong for all I know and all of his minions will soon overthrow him as leader of Malevolency.
In a nutshell, you can say I'm sadly disappointed that Astaroth just doesn't seem like a villain at certain times. I don't know. Maybe he'll be more evil later in the series, but for now, I think I'll categorize him a bit as Mr. Nice Guy. I'll nominate him as Dr. Evil II when he has more of the muahaha added in (okay, not exactly muahaha, but closer).
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OjrbRW6e1VE/THP3sett2tI/AAAAAAAAFBw/rsQC8kBELBw/s200/Dr_Evil.jpg"; />
So, the ending. Er, not exactly. Kind of a happy-sad ending, but not exactly an ending that will make me emotional that I'll need a Kleenex in hand and hide someplace so no one sees me crying, because if I get seen crying, it'll be as embarrassing as saying something in an awkward silence.. But I'm pretty glad that Max and his father saw someone they deeply cared for at least one more time after so many years. It's also not an ending where there's this lovely cliffhanger that keeps you at the edge of the seat, eager to read the next book.
As much as I hate cliffhangers, I just feel that there needs to be some sort of cliff waiting to catch more "victims" at the end when it comes to a series (maybe I'm so used to that frame of mind...), which I find missing in The Second Siege. Though hopefully I'm just missing that cliffhanger and just need to dig deeper...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
