Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2225 KP) rated With a Little Bit of Blood in Books
Jun 20, 2018
Henry and Eliza Must Solve a House Party Murder
Eliza Doolittle and Henry Higgins have been invited to the first house party thrown by the new Lord and Lady Ashford (she the former Clara Eynsford-Hill). The timing is perfect since a couple of strange things have forced the duo to look for a place to stay. However, the first morning a fellow guest is killed during the rabbit hunt. Henry is sure it was a hunting accident, but Eliza isn’t so sure. Who is right?
This is another fun mystery with the characters made famous by Pygmalion and My Fair Lady. The plot did seem to start slowly, however by the end I realized how things played into the overall story. A few of the regulars are reduced to cameos, but it was still nice to catch up with them. We have a rather large cast of characters, but it was always easy to keep them straight as the story unfolded. We get some fun with new (for 1913) things like airplanes and cars as well as mentions of the more serious things unfolding in the world at the time.
This is another fun mystery with the characters made famous by Pygmalion and My Fair Lady. The plot did seem to start slowly, however by the end I realized how things played into the overall story. A few of the regulars are reduced to cameos, but it was still nice to catch up with them. We have a rather large cast of characters, but it was always easy to keep them straight as the story unfolded. We get some fun with new (for 1913) things like airplanes and cars as well as mentions of the more serious things unfolding in the world at the time.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Perhaps the jewel in the crown of Scorsese’s gangster movies, from a fine crop. Adopting the voice of Henry Hill (a career defining role for Ray Liotta) as narrator is the first point of difference, and it works with tremendous effect. The suggestion is we are watching one man’s version of events that may or may not be entirely true. It is a relentless piece of cinema, that drives with complete bravado through each scene of shocking violence, machismo and greed. Too many memorable moments to mention… De Niro’s fountain pen; Pesci’s “Funny How?”, etc. A high level of rewatchabilty sets it above a lot of its rivals. It never judges or preaches to us, but lets us feel bad for enjoying the often repellent acts as so much fun! A product of 90s extremism, but never gratuitous. Simply a joy to watch and a nailed on classic.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated War Dogs (2016) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Good direction (3 more)
Scorsese influence
Soundtrack
Bradley Cooper
Fresher Than A Hangover
The craziest thing about this story is that it is based on two real life young men that made a fortune online becoming international arms dealers. Going in I expected a film similar to The Hangover, since it too was directed by Todd Phillips and both movies feature Bradley Cooper, however what I got was more of a Scorsese homage and in the best possible way. The story is narrated by Miles Teller’s character David Packouz, who acts as the audience surrogate, (the Henry Hill of this movie,) we are taken on this ride from his perspective and he narrates the whole thing. This alone is a trait borrowed from the great Martin Scorsese, but when the film also features freeze framing and quotes being used to begin chapters it is clear what this film is trying to be, but I admire its blatancy and if there is someone that you should take from when crafting a film, it is Martin Scorsese. Efraim Diveroli is played by Jonah Hill and he is the character that takes us on this rollercoaster journey. His performance here is fantastically intolerable, he is harsh, rude and borderline insane, but much like Joe Pesci’s performance as Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas, he is endearing and impossible to take your eyes off of whenever he is onscreen. Bradley Cooper also steals the few scenes that he appears in and overall this movie is proof that Phillips can handle telling a more serious, realistic story and doesn’t have to rely on Zach Galifinakis pretending to have learning difficulties to gain a few laughs.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Erika (17789 KP) rated The Confession Killer in TV
Apr 4, 2020
When I began this series, I wasn't really paying attention to it. I looked at the screen at one point and thought to myself, man, that jail looks super familiar, like the jail on Jail Hill in the town I grew up in. I shrugged it off, continued my chores, then saw a shot of the downtown square... I realized it was the town I grew up in, Georgetown, TX. BTW - when you live in a small town in TX, you end up doing some strange stuff, like touring an abandoned jail.
So, after I realized the dude was held in Georgetown, by the Wilco SO (I have very strong, negative feelings about those idiots), I paid attention. Henry Lee Lucas confessed to a crazy amount of crimes, crimes that he couldn't have committed due to timing and location. I still don't agree that he killed Orange Socks (a famous murder in GT). This dude was delusional, and Wilco was completely in the wrong, at one point, they're looking at calendars and offering dates to the other LE agencies calling them. I feel like it's really awful they 'solved' these murders, and ultimately killers are still out there.
I liked the way it was put together, but, like many Netflix shows, required editing to cut out at least the last ep.
So, after I realized the dude was held in Georgetown, by the Wilco SO (I have very strong, negative feelings about those idiots), I paid attention. Henry Lee Lucas confessed to a crazy amount of crimes, crimes that he couldn't have committed due to timing and location. I still don't agree that he killed Orange Socks (a famous murder in GT). This dude was delusional, and Wilco was completely in the wrong, at one point, they're looking at calendars and offering dates to the other LE agencies calling them. I feel like it's really awful they 'solved' these murders, and ultimately killers are still out there.
I liked the way it was put together, but, like many Netflix shows, required editing to cut out at least the last ep.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
LIKE A FINE WINE - gets better with age
I have to admit, when I first watched GOODFELLAS 30 years ago, I thought it was "good" but not "great".
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) in Movies
Apr 27, 2022
The Hellraiser franchise has certainly hit some low notes by the eight entry in the series, but you know what? Hellworld ain't one of those low notes, and this a hill I am willing to die on.
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
