Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Iron Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off, and manages to continue the enjoyment without losing too much steam in the process. Jon Favreau has kept the exciting action, lost a bit of character development, but added more of a comic-book dimension to the film series.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
SD
Studying Distant Galaxies: A Handbook of Methods and Analyses
Book
Distant galaxies encapsulate the various stages of galaxy evolution and formation from over 95% of...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Rasputin, the Mad Monk (1966) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Mad Monk
Rasputin, The Mad Monk- is a entertaining horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.
Guitar Notepad - Tab Editor
Music and Productivity
App
Guitar Notepad helps you easily and quickly jot down song ideas in guitar tab, save them to the...
Lucky Stars 2 - A Free Addictive Star Crush Game To Pop All Stars In The Sky
Games and Health & Fitness
App
The most popular star crush games now have its version 2! So fantastic new features supported, you...
Jurassic Parts
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Jurassic Parts is a small box area enclosure and set collection tile game featuring dinosaur...
Cryptoriana: The Seductiveness of Decay by Cradle Of Filth
5.5
Rate It
Album Watch
For the last quarter of a century, Cradle Of Filth have assumed the role of dark metal diarists,...
metal
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated Blood and Moonlight in Books
Jul 3, 2022
Contains spoilers, click to show
Title: Blood and Moonlight
Author: Erin Beaty
Rating: 3/5
Summary: This book is about solving the murder of Perette Charpentier who was brutally murdered in the street. She is the daughter of one the fourteen builders who were killed in an accident when the scaffolding collapsed five years before.
Review: I love the cover the designer did a good job it's so pretty. This book went back and forth between interesting and boring. When Catrin discovered and saw the murder it was interesting and semi caught my attention at this time but than the plot got so slow and could not keep my intrest for long.
Quotes and Thoughts while reading (Spoiler Warning):
1. "I heard everything, smelled everything, felt everything with overwhelming intensity. I'd even heard Perrete's thoughts, like they were hanging in the air with the scent of her perfume - and blood." ......... "The moon had done something to me."
Thoughts: This must have been scary and nerve wrecking for her to experience this.
2. "Perrete had the architect's hammer, and that's what the killer used. When it's found, it will lead straight to Magister Thomas."
Thoughts: He is one the people I suspected as the killer.
3. "Flower of white, curled up tight
In the day you hide from sight.
Selenae know, home to go
When your face begins to show."
4. "If magick is real, maybe I'm risking my soul. After all, if magick was good, wouldn't it come from the Sun?"
Thoughts: Not always plus the moon is better anyways.
5. "The bigger shock is that Magister Thomas knows the Selenae man.".... "Have you considered that perhaps she was meant to find that girl?".... "Moon doesn't cause madness, " the Selanae man is saying. "But it does make madness believe it is safe to come out."
Thoughts: I have a feeling this Selanae man is either her father or realities something isn't adding up.
6. "What happened to your neck? Three long scratches run from Simon's left ear to his collar bone. The marks aren't deep, but thin lines have stabbed over on each where the skin was broken."
Thoughts: Makes me think it's him that killed her maybe the scratches are from her fighting back.
Author: Erin Beaty
Rating: 3/5
Summary: This book is about solving the murder of Perette Charpentier who was brutally murdered in the street. She is the daughter of one the fourteen builders who were killed in an accident when the scaffolding collapsed five years before.
Review: I love the cover the designer did a good job it's so pretty. This book went back and forth between interesting and boring. When Catrin discovered and saw the murder it was interesting and semi caught my attention at this time but than the plot got so slow and could not keep my intrest for long.
Quotes and Thoughts while reading (Spoiler Warning):
1. "I heard everything, smelled everything, felt everything with overwhelming intensity. I'd even heard Perrete's thoughts, like they were hanging in the air with the scent of her perfume - and blood." ......... "The moon had done something to me."
Thoughts: This must have been scary and nerve wrecking for her to experience this.
2. "Perrete had the architect's hammer, and that's what the killer used. When it's found, it will lead straight to Magister Thomas."
Thoughts: He is one the people I suspected as the killer.
3. "Flower of white, curled up tight
In the day you hide from sight.
Selenae know, home to go
When your face begins to show."
4. "If magick is real, maybe I'm risking my soul. After all, if magick was good, wouldn't it come from the Sun?"
Thoughts: Not always plus the moon is better anyways.
5. "The bigger shock is that Magister Thomas knows the Selenae man.".... "Have you considered that perhaps she was meant to find that girl?".... "Moon doesn't cause madness, " the Selanae man is saying. "But it does make madness believe it is safe to come out."
Thoughts: I have a feeling this Selanae man is either her father or realities something isn't adding up.
6. "What happened to your neck? Three long scratches run from Simon's left ear to his collar bone. The marks aren't deep, but thin lines have stabbed over on each where the skin was broken."
Thoughts: Makes me think it's him that killed her maybe the scratches are from her fighting back.
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Dec 14, 2017
I put off seeing this movie for the longest time. At one point I didn't want to see it. I thought I had seen a lot of movies just like it. But this was definitely something different.
From the start of the movie you just new something crazy was going to happen. You see a black guy just snatched from the street and you just know something is going down. Now I thought all the men were brought to the house by the girl, because that just was how it looked by the photos in her closet. So it was kind of weird to see the brother kidnap someone at the start of the movie. But it just showed how insane the family was.
Like most horror movies they always start very lighthearted. You have the fun girlfriend, the smart ass best friend and even the cute little dog. Then as the movie progresses it really makes you start to get nervous in the right places. You know something is gong to happen but you don't know what. And then BAM! They lay the hammer down and you know you better run. Now the twist was done in a very curious way, they didn't just throw it in your face like some horror movies. They really eased you in and took there time to let it play out.
One cool thing I liked about the movie is the comic relief every once in awhile. I think it made it seem more real and then back into the shit. But thats what you get with Jordan Peele. By the time you got to the end you knew what was going to happen and that's ok, sometimes you can still enjoy a movie when you know how it will end.
Last thing I will say is the this movie had an Eli Roth feel to it. If you have never seen his movies, shame on you. But it was really refreshing to see a movie that another director did that had the same appeal. A lot of time you get a director or writer trying to copy another style and just failing, but this worked out regardless of Jordan trying to mimic that style or not.
Well thats about all the time I have. Please leave comments below if you agree with me or not. Pass out those kodus. Until next time, enjoy the show.
From the start of the movie you just new something crazy was going to happen. You see a black guy just snatched from the street and you just know something is going down. Now I thought all the men were brought to the house by the girl, because that just was how it looked by the photos in her closet. So it was kind of weird to see the brother kidnap someone at the start of the movie. But it just showed how insane the family was.
Like most horror movies they always start very lighthearted. You have the fun girlfriend, the smart ass best friend and even the cute little dog. Then as the movie progresses it really makes you start to get nervous in the right places. You know something is gong to happen but you don't know what. And then BAM! They lay the hammer down and you know you better run. Now the twist was done in a very curious way, they didn't just throw it in your face like some horror movies. They really eased you in and took there time to let it play out.
One cool thing I liked about the movie is the comic relief every once in awhile. I think it made it seem more real and then back into the shit. But thats what you get with Jordan Peele. By the time you got to the end you knew what was going to happen and that's ok, sometimes you can still enjoy a movie when you know how it will end.
Last thing I will say is the this movie had an Eli Roth feel to it. If you have never seen his movies, shame on you. But it was really refreshing to see a movie that another director did that had the same appeal. A lot of time you get a director or writer trying to copy another style and just failing, but this worked out regardless of Jordan trying to mimic that style or not.
Well thats about all the time I have. Please leave comments below if you agree with me or not. Pass out those kodus. Until next time, enjoy the show.