Search
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
I think this film is wonderfully made. I love the story, the characters, the plot, the setting, all of it. I almost wish they didn't set it in time though. It's supposed to be 1983, but what I loved so much about the book is how timeless the story felt. It didn't feel like it belonged to any one decade, it felt like something that could withstand the tests of time and I wish they would've let that play in the movie too.
I love Timothée Chalamet as Elio so much, I think he's perfect. I loved Armie Hammer as Oliver too, there were some points, though, where he definitely seemed older than 24. I loved their chemistry, I think it's obvious that they got along and they had a lot of trust in one another. My favorite character though is Mr. Pearlman. I love his love for Elio and the way that he talks to him, especially after Oliver leaves and he sees that Elio is so obviously heartbroken. I love that he is just accepting and loves him unconditionally but also pushes him to not run from his feelings and to allow them to wash over him. I hope to be that kind of parent when I have kids.
I think this is the type of film that the LGBTQ+ community has been asking for for so long. I love coming out stories and coming of age stories as much as the next person but the stories where it's just comfortable and it's already there and there isn't any need for them to question who they are, those stories are important too. I don't know that this film entirely fits that box, but I think it fits more into that one than the coming of age type. I don't think Elio ever questioned whether or not he liked boys, I think he just questioned whether or not he should if that makes any sense.
I would've loved to see some scenes in the book make it to the screen, but I know that that isn't always possible. Additionally, the only other downside to this film in it's comparison to the book is that the book is written from Elio's perspective so you get all his thoughts and his loves and his assumptions about Oliver as he falls for him and you can only portray so much of that on film without a narration of sorts and if they did that, it would just take away from the story and the things that aren't said.
Lastly, a random side note, in this film, Timothée reminds me a lot of Shia LaBeouf. I have absolutely no idea why, but he does. I wonder if this would be a film Shia would've done if it was made when he was younger.
Anyways, phenomenal film.
I love Timothée Chalamet as Elio so much, I think he's perfect. I loved Armie Hammer as Oliver too, there were some points, though, where he definitely seemed older than 24. I loved their chemistry, I think it's obvious that they got along and they had a lot of trust in one another. My favorite character though is Mr. Pearlman. I love his love for Elio and the way that he talks to him, especially after Oliver leaves and he sees that Elio is so obviously heartbroken. I love that he is just accepting and loves him unconditionally but also pushes him to not run from his feelings and to allow them to wash over him. I hope to be that kind of parent when I have kids.
I think this is the type of film that the LGBTQ+ community has been asking for for so long. I love coming out stories and coming of age stories as much as the next person but the stories where it's just comfortable and it's already there and there isn't any need for them to question who they are, those stories are important too. I don't know that this film entirely fits that box, but I think it fits more into that one than the coming of age type. I don't think Elio ever questioned whether or not he liked boys, I think he just questioned whether or not he should if that makes any sense.
I would've loved to see some scenes in the book make it to the screen, but I know that that isn't always possible. Additionally, the only other downside to this film in it's comparison to the book is that the book is written from Elio's perspective so you get all his thoughts and his loves and his assumptions about Oliver as he falls for him and you can only portray so much of that on film without a narration of sorts and if they did that, it would just take away from the story and the things that aren't said.
Lastly, a random side note, in this film, Timothée reminds me a lot of Shia LaBeouf. I have absolutely no idea why, but he does. I wonder if this would be a film Shia would've done if it was made when he was younger.
Anyways, phenomenal film.
Pigu.lt - mobilioji parduotuvė
Shopping and Catalogs
App
Pigu.lt mobilioji parduotuvė – tai populiariausios elektroninės parduotuvės Lietuvoje Pigu.lt...
iSEM Synthesizer
Music
App
COMPATIBILITY iSEM is compatible with iPad 2 and later, iPad with Retina Display and iPad mini....
Frag doch mal… die Maus!
Games and Education
App
Ein Quiz-Spiel mit der Maus! Da ist der Spaß für die ganze Familie vorprogrammiert! "Frag doch...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Of lazy Italian summer nights.
It took me two sittings on different transatlantic flights to get through Luca Guadagnino’s much vaunted coming of age film. And I accept that this piecemeal approach might not have enhanced my opinion of the movie. Because I’m going to upset some of you who claimed it to be your “film of the year” last year. While I enjoyed it, it certainly didn’t grab me like that.
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Two worlds, One hero
Thor is presented with a difficult challenge - believably incorporating a god into the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has already been established. This task falls to director Kenneth Branagh, who devotes sufficient time to both Asgard, Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) home realm, and Earth, where he is exiled to. Asgard is depicted through a heavy use of special effects which creates a sense of wonder, but the story is steeped in relatable familial issues. When Thor disobeys his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), he is cast to Earth as a mortal. His hammer, Mjolnir, is the source of his powers, and it is also sent to Earth to await someone worthy enough to wield such power.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What a great way to start this film. Ginsburg walking through the crowd of men all set to the Harvard fight song "Ten Thousand Men Of Harvard", it sums up the message of the film so well and makes you realise just how much of a challenge she was up against.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Plague of the Zombies (1966) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Plague of the Zombies starts when Sir James Forbes (Morell) takes his daughter Sylvia (Clare) to Cornwell, to help a for student of his Dr Peter Tompson (Williams) with a string of cases which can’t be explained by the normal science.
When Peter’s wife Alice (Pearce) dies, the two try to figure out what killed her, only what they discover isn’t human. Soon it appears the village is being over run by the zombies and they must hunt down the master controlling them.
Thoughts on The Plague of the Zombies
Characters – Sir James Forbes is the respected doctor that gets called upon to help with an unknown medical case, he will help his former student uncover the case, he does believe something unusual is going on and starts to worry about his daughter. Sylvia is the daughter that goes on the journey, she becomes the target from the master who wants her to become his bride. She is the typical 60’s damsel in distress. Dr Peter Tompson is the one who called for help knowing his mentor wouldn’t let him down when it comes to figuring out the unexplainable. Alice is Peter’s wife that is the latest to become cursed with what is happening within the village, she makes it feel more personal for the two doctors.
Performances – Andre Morell as the more experienced doctor is entertaining to watch through the film, he fits the wiser role with ease. Diane Clare fits your typical 60’s horror figure for the era, never doing much more than screaming. Brooke Williams doesn’t make his character feel like a doctor though.
Story – The story follows a doctor that is asked to investigate a new outbreak of a disease in a small village, only to learn it has connection to voodoo and zombies. We must think that this story was put together before zombie movies had over taken the world, the idea behind voodoo and zombies was always a connection which works for the ideas being used in this story. the story might not be the most intense and does end up being rather safe with how everything being handled, never managing to reach any level of creepiness which could be associated with voodoo zombie creation.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from the ideas of zombies and voodoo, which for the time, was one of the scarier elements of horror, even if it has been watered down in the modern era.
Settings – The film is set in a small Cornwell village, which shows us how the community has become considered, while also showing how the community could stick together with a more evil idea going on.
Special Effects – The effects in the film comes from the zombie creations, which show us a wonderful use of make-up, with other elements of the film coming from how injuries are inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – Alice rises.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not as creepy as it could be.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that when released would have gotten more scares, now it has dated and just doesn’t connect the audience in the same way it once did.
Overall: Hammer horror 101
When Peter’s wife Alice (Pearce) dies, the two try to figure out what killed her, only what they discover isn’t human. Soon it appears the village is being over run by the zombies and they must hunt down the master controlling them.
Thoughts on The Plague of the Zombies
Characters – Sir James Forbes is the respected doctor that gets called upon to help with an unknown medical case, he will help his former student uncover the case, he does believe something unusual is going on and starts to worry about his daughter. Sylvia is the daughter that goes on the journey, she becomes the target from the master who wants her to become his bride. She is the typical 60’s damsel in distress. Dr Peter Tompson is the one who called for help knowing his mentor wouldn’t let him down when it comes to figuring out the unexplainable. Alice is Peter’s wife that is the latest to become cursed with what is happening within the village, she makes it feel more personal for the two doctors.
Performances – Andre Morell as the more experienced doctor is entertaining to watch through the film, he fits the wiser role with ease. Diane Clare fits your typical 60’s horror figure for the era, never doing much more than screaming. Brooke Williams doesn’t make his character feel like a doctor though.
Story – The story follows a doctor that is asked to investigate a new outbreak of a disease in a small village, only to learn it has connection to voodoo and zombies. We must think that this story was put together before zombie movies had over taken the world, the idea behind voodoo and zombies was always a connection which works for the ideas being used in this story. the story might not be the most intense and does end up being rather safe with how everything being handled, never managing to reach any level of creepiness which could be associated with voodoo zombie creation.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from the ideas of zombies and voodoo, which for the time, was one of the scarier elements of horror, even if it has been watered down in the modern era.
Settings – The film is set in a small Cornwell village, which shows us how the community has become considered, while also showing how the community could stick together with a more evil idea going on.
Special Effects – The effects in the film comes from the zombie creations, which show us a wonderful use of make-up, with other elements of the film coming from how injuries are inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – Alice rises.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not as creepy as it could be.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that when released would have gotten more scares, now it has dated and just doesn’t connect the audience in the same way it once did.
Overall: Hammer horror 101
220.lv - mobilais veikals
Shopping and Catalogs
App
220.lv mobilais veikals - tā ir mobilā aplikācija pašam populārākajam interneta veikalam...