Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Breathtaking and Intense
It's 1940 and the Nazis are overpowering the British army, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk in an effort to return home to England. The English channel is all that stands in the way of the 400,000 soldiers that are stranded on the beach. The story begins with Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), making his way through the town as propaganda is being dropped from the sky, informing them that the enemy are closing in. After a brief dash to avoid the bullets that begin raining down on him and some fellow soldiers, he barely manages to make it to the beach where the immense desperation of the situation becomes apparent. Thousands of men lined up, waiting for something to free them while bodies wash up on the beach. The cinematic scale is, as you'd expect from Christopher Nolan, impressive. And it doesn't let up from then on.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Drop Dead Gorgeous (Return to Fear Street #3) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Great pacing (1 more)
Interesting plot
Cheesy Characters (1 more)
Not enough backstory
Cheesy but an Alright Read
I grew up reading R.L. Stine books especially his Fear Street series. When I heard there was going to be a new Fear Street series, I knew I had to read it. I loved the first book in the series, You May Now Kill the Bride. I was not impressed with the second book in the series, The Wrong Girl. I thought the latest book in the series, Drop Dead Gorgeous, was just an alright read.
The plot for Drop Dead Gorgeous was fairly interesting. Morgan Marks is the new girl at Linden High. No one knows where she came from, and her answers to everything are vague. She has a magnetic pull over all of the males in and around Linden. When I found out that Morgan was a vampire (not a spoiler, don't worry), I rolled my eyes and thought I wouldn't like this book. I'm not a big fan of vampire books (or films) since they've over-saturated the market. However, Drop Dead Gorgeous turned out to be alright. Anyway, someone is killing off the residents of Linden and draining their blood. Is it Morgan or could be be someone else? The world building was written to be believable enough even if some of the characters weren't believable. There were a few plot twists. A couple of them I didn't see coming, but I did predict a major plot twist.
All of the males in Drop Dead Gorgeous were beyond annoying and immature. All they could talk about were hot girls it seemed. They were really one dimensional, and I found myself not caring about Liam, Winks, and Zane. They would all brag how great they were, especially Winks. I'm sure there are some people like this, but I felt like it was a bit over the top having all three males in the book being so vapid and conceited. The females in Drop Dead Gorgeous had a little more depth to them thankfully. I still didn't care much about Delia, Amber, or Julie because there was no back story, so it was hard to connect to them. Out of the three girls, Delia seemed to feel the most real. Morgan was a good character. I enjoyed her backstory even if it was short, but hey, at least she had some backstory. The dialogue between the characters was extremely corny in some places, and I know I haven't been a teenager in many years, but I've never heard any teenage conversations like the ones in Drop Dead Gorgeous.
I will say that the pacing was done fairly well for Drop Dead Gorgeous. The first few chapters are a bit slow, but the pacing definitely picks up not much longer after that. I found myself immersed in what was happening in Linden.
Trigger warnings for Drop Dead Gorgeous include violence, death, murder, some gore, older man and underage girl kissing, and underage drinking.
Overall, Drop Dead Gorgeous was just an alright read. It wasn't great, but it wasn't a bad read either. If you can look past the overly cheesy characters, this is a good read. I would definitely recommend Drop Dead Gorgeous by R.L. Stine to those aged 15+.
The plot for Drop Dead Gorgeous was fairly interesting. Morgan Marks is the new girl at Linden High. No one knows where she came from, and her answers to everything are vague. She has a magnetic pull over all of the males in and around Linden. When I found out that Morgan was a vampire (not a spoiler, don't worry), I rolled my eyes and thought I wouldn't like this book. I'm not a big fan of vampire books (or films) since they've over-saturated the market. However, Drop Dead Gorgeous turned out to be alright. Anyway, someone is killing off the residents of Linden and draining their blood. Is it Morgan or could be be someone else? The world building was written to be believable enough even if some of the characters weren't believable. There were a few plot twists. A couple of them I didn't see coming, but I did predict a major plot twist.
All of the males in Drop Dead Gorgeous were beyond annoying and immature. All they could talk about were hot girls it seemed. They were really one dimensional, and I found myself not caring about Liam, Winks, and Zane. They would all brag how great they were, especially Winks. I'm sure there are some people like this, but I felt like it was a bit over the top having all three males in the book being so vapid and conceited. The females in Drop Dead Gorgeous had a little more depth to them thankfully. I still didn't care much about Delia, Amber, or Julie because there was no back story, so it was hard to connect to them. Out of the three girls, Delia seemed to feel the most real. Morgan was a good character. I enjoyed her backstory even if it was short, but hey, at least she had some backstory. The dialogue between the characters was extremely corny in some places, and I know I haven't been a teenager in many years, but I've never heard any teenage conversations like the ones in Drop Dead Gorgeous.
I will say that the pacing was done fairly well for Drop Dead Gorgeous. The first few chapters are a bit slow, but the pacing definitely picks up not much longer after that. I found myself immersed in what was happening in Linden.
Trigger warnings for Drop Dead Gorgeous include violence, death, murder, some gore, older man and underage girl kissing, and underage drinking.
Overall, Drop Dead Gorgeous was just an alright read. It wasn't great, but it wasn't a bad read either. If you can look past the overly cheesy characters, this is a good read. I would definitely recommend Drop Dead Gorgeous by R.L. Stine to those aged 15+.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Oh...hell, no!
HELLBOY?!? HELL NO!
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (Rosemary's Baby, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>This is no dream, she thought. This is real, this is happening.</i></b>
<b>Note to self and others:</b> beware of overly friendly neighbours.
This is amazing. At just over 200 pages, this novel takes you on a hell (excuse the pun) of a journey that you wont forget anytime soon. Levin has managed to make a novel so witty, and at the same time, so terrifying. In a way, the tone of this book is reminiscent of American Psycho (or rather American Psycho is reminiscent of this as it came out afterwards), but rather than in-your-face vulgar gore, this is far more psychologically disturbing. Never has such a mundane life, as Rosemarys and Guys, ever been so horrifying.
Id already watched the movie when I picked this up, so I knew what this novel was about and what happened, and I think, maybe, that made me enjoy this <i>more.</i> When you know how the story plays out, the tension in this really grips you and you find yourself angry and empathetic towards Rosemarys naivety. I think if I went into this novel not knowing, Rosemary would have simply pissed me off, shes that sort of weak and dependant woman I oh-so hate in books, but it was a different experience for me, knowing what I know. Thats not to say you wont like this going into it blind, Im sure the tension and horror of this will affect you just the same way <i>and</i>_ you'll get the pleasure of the pure shock of the discovery, something I didn't.
Ive said previously that I find it hard to really <i>hate</i> a character in a book, as I often find things to like about them, despite all their bad ways, but thats not the case in this one. Lets just say there is one specific character in this I hate more than anyone (in any other book ever, so far) for their betrayal, all for their own selfish gain.
The ending of this novel is one of the hardest, if not <i>the</i> hardest to swallow. Its <i>so</i> distressing and <i>so</i> upsetting. I cant say anything more than that, but its truly awful.
Im really trying not to give too much away with this review, its hard not to say so many things, but I think its OK to mention the fact this book is about devilry (its written on the book as a quote from Capote so it cant exactly be ignored)! This is a truly terrifying novel, and if you had qualms about having children before, youll definitely have more after reading this book.
This is a one-sitting read for me and Im actually excited to re-read it sometime in the future. This work is a masterpiece. Levin is an incredible writer and Im now aiming to read the rest of his work by the end of the year (yes, even <i>Son of Rosemary</i>, even though it has the worst ratings ever).
P.S. Even if you dont like horror, youll most likely enjoy this book as its not openly trying to freak you out. Its far more a suspense novel that gets in your head.
<b>Note to self and others:</b> beware of overly friendly neighbours.
This is amazing. At just over 200 pages, this novel takes you on a hell (excuse the pun) of a journey that you wont forget anytime soon. Levin has managed to make a novel so witty, and at the same time, so terrifying. In a way, the tone of this book is reminiscent of American Psycho (or rather American Psycho is reminiscent of this as it came out afterwards), but rather than in-your-face vulgar gore, this is far more psychologically disturbing. Never has such a mundane life, as Rosemarys and Guys, ever been so horrifying.
Id already watched the movie when I picked this up, so I knew what this novel was about and what happened, and I think, maybe, that made me enjoy this <i>more.</i> When you know how the story plays out, the tension in this really grips you and you find yourself angry and empathetic towards Rosemarys naivety. I think if I went into this novel not knowing, Rosemary would have simply pissed me off, shes that sort of weak and dependant woman I oh-so hate in books, but it was a different experience for me, knowing what I know. Thats not to say you wont like this going into it blind, Im sure the tension and horror of this will affect you just the same way <i>and</i>_ you'll get the pleasure of the pure shock of the discovery, something I didn't.
Ive said previously that I find it hard to really <i>hate</i> a character in a book, as I often find things to like about them, despite all their bad ways, but thats not the case in this one. Lets just say there is one specific character in this I hate more than anyone (in any other book ever, so far) for their betrayal, all for their own selfish gain.
The ending of this novel is one of the hardest, if not <i>the</i> hardest to swallow. Its <i>so</i> distressing and <i>so</i> upsetting. I cant say anything more than that, but its truly awful.
Im really trying not to give too much away with this review, its hard not to say so many things, but I think its OK to mention the fact this book is about devilry (its written on the book as a quote from Capote so it cant exactly be ignored)! This is a truly terrifying novel, and if you had qualms about having children before, youll definitely have more after reading this book.
This is a one-sitting read for me and Im actually excited to re-read it sometime in the future. This work is a masterpiece. Levin is an incredible writer and Im now aiming to read the rest of his work by the end of the year (yes, even <i>Son of Rosemary</i>, even though it has the worst ratings ever).
P.S. Even if you dont like horror, youll most likely enjoy this book as its not openly trying to freak you out. Its far more a suspense novel that gets in your head.
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 Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Taking what was old making it new again as long been criticism that is been levied against Hollywood. With abundance equals flooding the theaters as well as reboots; people often cynically ask if Hollywood has run out of new ideas. The latest film to fall under these criteria would be “Once Upon A Deadpool” where audiences are presented with a sanitized version of “Deadpool 2” accompanied by approximately 11 min. worth of new footage at the beginning and spread throughout.
The PG-13 take on what was definitely a very “R” rated film is been met with skeptics who see this as a sign of the pending Disney acquisition of Fox to test the waters to see if audiences will accept a more subdued take on the hero us paving the way for future adventures to be the more box office friendly “PG-13″.
The film cleverly opens with Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), having kidnapped or as he likes to refer to it” involuntary relocation assistance”; Fred Savage as he attempts to re-create the opening of “The Princess Bride” and reads to him a family-friendlier version of “Deadpool 2”.
The film plays out as it did earlier this summer safe for much of the language being removed and use of pixels and cutaways to remove objectionable or an adult content to preserve the “PG-13” rating. What makes it enjoyable are the new seems where Reynolds and Savage exchange banter and debate topics ranging from Nickelback to the pending Disney acquisition of Fox.
I found myself looking forward to the next cutaway to hear what comments would be coming next including a very clever discussion of possible outcomes of Deadpool’s regenerative properties; and how they were not explored in the film due to “lazy writing”.
For me it was mostly a mixed bag as I enjoyed seeing the new footage as any new Deadpool content is always a treat and Reynolds seem to be having a great time returning to the character in an abbreviated fashion.
While the film basically played out as before; I found a sanitized version to not be as appealing simply because one of the joys of the character and the series is not knowing what will come next. How far will a joke be taken, how much Gore is going to be used for comedic effect, what invented a new profanity is going to spew from Deadpool? Much of this is been taken away to what I believe is a detriment to the franchise. One of the joys about the films is that the wise comments come at the audience and a rapid-fire approach. This makes you want to see the film again in order to catch what you witnessed previously. It felt like I was being deprived of this opportunity because while in many ways it was the same film, much of the adage that made the film stand out has been subdued.
While it is great that younger audiences will have an opportunity to experience the character; those of us who’ve seen him and his full uncensored glory will undoubtedly feel that this is a direction that should not be pursued for the future and that audiences want and deserve a fully uncensored Deadpool.
However for a little bit of family fun and a cute new laughs; “Once Upon A Deadpool”, is a pleasant enough distraction.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/once-upon-a-deadpool/
The PG-13 take on what was definitely a very “R” rated film is been met with skeptics who see this as a sign of the pending Disney acquisition of Fox to test the waters to see if audiences will accept a more subdued take on the hero us paving the way for future adventures to be the more box office friendly “PG-13″.
The film cleverly opens with Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), having kidnapped or as he likes to refer to it” involuntary relocation assistance”; Fred Savage as he attempts to re-create the opening of “The Princess Bride” and reads to him a family-friendlier version of “Deadpool 2”.
The film plays out as it did earlier this summer safe for much of the language being removed and use of pixels and cutaways to remove objectionable or an adult content to preserve the “PG-13” rating. What makes it enjoyable are the new seems where Reynolds and Savage exchange banter and debate topics ranging from Nickelback to the pending Disney acquisition of Fox.
I found myself looking forward to the next cutaway to hear what comments would be coming next including a very clever discussion of possible outcomes of Deadpool’s regenerative properties; and how they were not explored in the film due to “lazy writing”.
For me it was mostly a mixed bag as I enjoyed seeing the new footage as any new Deadpool content is always a treat and Reynolds seem to be having a great time returning to the character in an abbreviated fashion.
While the film basically played out as before; I found a sanitized version to not be as appealing simply because one of the joys of the character and the series is not knowing what will come next. How far will a joke be taken, how much Gore is going to be used for comedic effect, what invented a new profanity is going to spew from Deadpool? Much of this is been taken away to what I believe is a detriment to the franchise. One of the joys about the films is that the wise comments come at the audience and a rapid-fire approach. This makes you want to see the film again in order to catch what you witnessed previously. It felt like I was being deprived of this opportunity because while in many ways it was the same film, much of the adage that made the film stand out has been subdued.
While it is great that younger audiences will have an opportunity to experience the character; those of us who’ve seen him and his full uncensored glory will undoubtedly feel that this is a direction that should not be pursued for the future and that audiences want and deserve a fully uncensored Deadpool.
However for a little bit of family fun and a cute new laughs; “Once Upon A Deadpool”, is a pleasant enough distraction.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/once-upon-a-deadpool/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Superheroes and villains are a subject close to my heart, I enjoy speculating on the good and bad potential of superpowers, so to have the bad Superman story laid out like this is very interesting to experience.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Verdict: Big Improvement
Story: The Devil’s Rejects starts as the Firefly family have been dubbed ‘The Devil’s Rejects’ by the media see their house surrounded by a vengeful police force led by Sheriff Wydell (Forsythe), with a massive shootout on the ranch. Mother Firely (Easterbrook) is captured, while Otis (Moseley) and Baby (Zombie) escape turning to Captain Spaulding (Haig) for shelter.
Otis and Baby find shelter in a motel, taking a family hostage, while they wait for the showdown with the Sheriff, giving them a chance to continue their murderous way.
Thoughts on The Devil’s Rejects
Characters – Captain Spaulding still runs his house of horrors away from the house, despite being part of the house, he must go on the run to meet the other members of the Fireflies, which sees him showing a much nastier side than we have seen before. Otis is the most twisted member of the family, he will punish anybody, he doesn’t care about anybody and will show his sadistic side too often. Baby is the youngest member of the family, she has grown up in this environment, acting like it is just second nature to her, she enjoys the punishment even turning it into a game at times. Sheriff Wydell is determined to capture and kill the whole Firefly family after they killed his brother, he will break a few rules along the way to make sure it gets done.
Performances – Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Sheri Moon Zombie have helped develop their characters to have a much darker side to them, which shows us more about how sadistic they are meant to be through the film. William Forsythe brings us a strong police figure that clearly shows the vengeful side he is going through in the film.
Story – The story here follows the events of the first film, the Firefly family have been discovered and are now on the run from a vengeful sheriff that wants the whole family dead for what they did to his family member. Where this story improves on the original comes from seeing just how the fireflies are able to react to a threat, we get a glimpse of their sadistic side, but instead of it just them being twisted, we get to see them dealing with a relentless cop that isn’t going to let them get away with their crimes. The story is constructed better too because we don’t just have random clips like we had in the first film, which shows how the film can be put together to give us a better story.
Action/Horror – This is much more action back with shoot outs going on between the two sides, while the horror is still there when the fireflies get to step into their sadistic ways.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the Fireflies can go on the run from the law, we see the back country motels which they would hide out in and the connections of other shady business they would know.
Special Effects – The effects in the film show the gore being done by the family, it shows the wounds looking brutal and real through the film.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It still doesn’t give us any likeable figures in the fight.
Final Thoughts – This is an improvement on the first film, it does give us a more rounded figures in the Firefly family and shows us just how capable they are when pushed against the wall.
Overall: Sick Improvement.
Otis and Baby find shelter in a motel, taking a family hostage, while they wait for the showdown with the Sheriff, giving them a chance to continue their murderous way.
Thoughts on The Devil’s Rejects
Characters – Captain Spaulding still runs his house of horrors away from the house, despite being part of the house, he must go on the run to meet the other members of the Fireflies, which sees him showing a much nastier side than we have seen before. Otis is the most twisted member of the family, he will punish anybody, he doesn’t care about anybody and will show his sadistic side too often. Baby is the youngest member of the family, she has grown up in this environment, acting like it is just second nature to her, she enjoys the punishment even turning it into a game at times. Sheriff Wydell is determined to capture and kill the whole Firefly family after they killed his brother, he will break a few rules along the way to make sure it gets done.
Performances – Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Sheri Moon Zombie have helped develop their characters to have a much darker side to them, which shows us more about how sadistic they are meant to be through the film. William Forsythe brings us a strong police figure that clearly shows the vengeful side he is going through in the film.
Story – The story here follows the events of the first film, the Firefly family have been discovered and are now on the run from a vengeful sheriff that wants the whole family dead for what they did to his family member. Where this story improves on the original comes from seeing just how the fireflies are able to react to a threat, we get a glimpse of their sadistic side, but instead of it just them being twisted, we get to see them dealing with a relentless cop that isn’t going to let them get away with their crimes. The story is constructed better too because we don’t just have random clips like we had in the first film, which shows how the film can be put together to give us a better story.
Action/Horror – This is much more action back with shoot outs going on between the two sides, while the horror is still there when the fireflies get to step into their sadistic ways.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the Fireflies can go on the run from the law, we see the back country motels which they would hide out in and the connections of other shady business they would know.
Special Effects – The effects in the film show the gore being done by the family, it shows the wounds looking brutal and real through the film.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It still doesn’t give us any likeable figures in the fight.
Final Thoughts – This is an improvement on the first film, it does give us a more rounded figures in the Firefly family and shows us just how capable they are when pushed against the wall.
Overall: Sick Improvement.