Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Neighbor in Books
Apr 13, 2021
I can not get enough of London Clarke's books. I have not read a bad one yet, so when I saw that she had released a new book entitled The Neighbor, I knew I had to read it. To say I was blown away is an understatement. The Neighbor has now become my favorite London Clarke book so far.
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
iSymphonic Orchestra
Music and Education
App
The ultimate orchestra sound app for sophisticated musicians by award-winning sound designer Kurt...
LEGO® Life
Entertainment
App
A safe community built specially for boys and girls, LEGO® Life is 100% free to download and 100%...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 9, 2022
Fun...with heart
Doctor Strange is my favorite Marvel character. This comes from my college days when one of my roommates had a stack of Dr. Strange comics and I tore through them - one of the few Marvel comics that I have actually read. So I was thrilled to find out that Sam Raimi was coming back (was he ever gone?) to direct the 2nd solo Dr. Strange film, DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Chemistry between Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson (1 more)
As always, END CREDITS SEQUENCE
A Marvel-ous "Buddy Cop" film
For those of you who read my reviews regularly know, I am a fan of the films produced in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. There has been a bit of a hiatus in these films (the last one was ANT MAN AND THE WASP last July) so it was with some excitement that I headed to the multiplex to check out the latest installment in this film franchise.
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.