Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jackals (2017) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Jimmy Levine has been deprogramming cult members for years, after being part of one before, he will push Justin, but this time he may have met his match. Kathy is the mother of the family, she has turned to drink after her marriage fell apart, she does enjoy the grandmother role though. Andrew is the father that brings in Jimmy, willing to face his own mistakes to save his son from the cult. Justin is the son that joined the cult, he believes he is part of a new family and they have come in search for his baby daughter to join the cult.
Performances – We do have a couple of well-known actors in this film, Stephen Dorff, Deborah Kara Unger and Johnathon Schaech being the big three, the problem is with the story, the three actors struggle to make the impact in this film they could have. Nobody gets to make the most of their work in this film apart from the cult members that makes us feel like we are watching the creepy crazed figures.
Story – The story follows a family try to save their son from a cult he joined, only the cult isn’t accepting one of their members to leaving, even if he doesn’t want to leave. This does take a spin on the home invasion film because we have a ready made established member of the cult being taken against his will, the cult size is scary big with the action against being deadly. The problems with the story come from the idea that we don’t learn the true motives of the people in the cult, why he joined them in the first place and with the ending feeling like they just ran out of money. This story has so much more potential, it feels like something was just missing in the execution as the ending is completely rushed.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from just what the cult is willing to do, they will make you feel uneasy every time they are just stood in the shadows, this is easily the highlight of the film. we are left to keep guessing on just what will happen in the film too.
Settings – The film is set in a cabin the woods, we have no signal, the cars are the only way out, but taken away early meaning the family is isolated and trapped, perfect for what the cult want to do to them.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough, we see most of the aftermath of any damage, which the one time we get to see the shocking damage we can easily turn away from that.
Scene of the Movie – The figures in the shadows.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that was filled with potential, we could have seen so much more even if the horror side of the film is the highlight of the film.
Overall: Disturbing, yet unfulfilling horror.
Performances – We do have a couple of well-known actors in this film, Stephen Dorff, Deborah Kara Unger and Johnathon Schaech being the big three, the problem is with the story, the three actors struggle to make the impact in this film they could have. Nobody gets to make the most of their work in this film apart from the cult members that makes us feel like we are watching the creepy crazed figures.
Story – The story follows a family try to save their son from a cult he joined, only the cult isn’t accepting one of their members to leaving, even if he doesn’t want to leave. This does take a spin on the home invasion film because we have a ready made established member of the cult being taken against his will, the cult size is scary big with the action against being deadly. The problems with the story come from the idea that we don’t learn the true motives of the people in the cult, why he joined them in the first place and with the ending feeling like they just ran out of money. This story has so much more potential, it feels like something was just missing in the execution as the ending is completely rushed.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from just what the cult is willing to do, they will make you feel uneasy every time they are just stood in the shadows, this is easily the highlight of the film. we are left to keep guessing on just what will happen in the film too.
Settings – The film is set in a cabin the woods, we have no signal, the cars are the only way out, but taken away early meaning the family is isolated and trapped, perfect for what the cult want to do to them.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough, we see most of the aftermath of any damage, which the one time we get to see the shocking damage we can easily turn away from that.
Scene of the Movie – The figures in the shadows.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that was filled with potential, we could have seen so much more even if the horror side of the film is the highlight of the film.
Overall: Disturbing, yet unfulfilling horror.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Don't Breathe 2 (2021) in Movies
Aug 18, 2021
Nicely paced direction and non stop (bloody) action (1 more)
Madelyn Grace delivers a nice and professional performance
Not very original (1 more)
Should we be rooting for Norman at all?
That kid’ll need counselling for life!
I mean. If there was ever an opportunity to come up with a clever title for a sequel, this was it right? "Breathe Again"; "Hold it for a bit longer"; "Are You Turning Blue Yet?". But no... we just get a boring old "2" at the end!
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miracle (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
n 1980, America was in a state of transition and turmoil as political events threatened world stability. The Reagan era was just starting but the nation was still trying to deal with economic issues as well as the Iran hostage crisis, and long gas lines.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Truth Teller (The Truth Teller Series #1) in Books
Nov 27, 2019
Remember when you were 6 or 7 and first read The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe? Well I do and the whole 'you could go to another realm and be special' thing was such a key to drawing me into fantasy. And at that age the whole talking animals thing was entirely in keeping with my imagination.
But if you are a little older, nicely into double figures of age. Although the escape to another realm is still a terrific idea, the talking animals are just not going to fit anymore. What you need is a bit of action and likeable characters who are realistic while still being elves and dwarves. But if Narnia is no longer a viable destination at that age, where is?
Truth Teller fits the bill perfectly. Charlotte is a normal ten year old girl on holiday with her family. While wandering around the shops of the local town she finds a strange curio shop. She finds one of the objects in the shop interesting - a sort of snow globe without any snow. The odd little man who runs the shop gives it to her for free, but warns her that the price she pays might not be of the monetary kind.
That night while studying the globe she feels if she is falling into it and finds herself in a cold woodland, where she meets Elder. Very soon it is apparent to her that she is not anywhere near where she should be, if she is even on Earth at all anymore. Elder is an elf and he and his family try to help Charlotte find her way back home. Meanwhile dark forces are stirring and rumours of invasion are spreading.
Chambers has set out to provide an entry point into fantasy for younger (female) readers and has done a sterling job. My immediate reaction to this book was that it is flawless, in idea and execution. Although perhaps a little cliched for grizzle fantasy readers like myself it contains just enough strange creatures - elves, dwarves, giant wolves and druids - and a sprinkling of magic here and there to whisk the plot along. And it is whisked at some pace too, the narrative fluid and always in motion towards the books conclusion without much of a pause for breath.
Charlotte as the main character is well written and prone to modern turns of phrase that baffle her elven friends. Elder the elf boy she meets is charming and friendly even though he is as confused by Charlotte's plight as she is. The other characters are also very well drawn.
The story entwines the various threads into a whole that is easy to read and hard to forget. Reaching the last page was something I dreaded but like a lot of things the end of this book is just the start of the story of the Truth Teller.
If anyone is looking for a first book in fantasy, without the talking animals, this book fits the bill perfectly. Narnia for the iPhone generation? It's pretty close to that.
But if you are a little older, nicely into double figures of age. Although the escape to another realm is still a terrific idea, the talking animals are just not going to fit anymore. What you need is a bit of action and likeable characters who are realistic while still being elves and dwarves. But if Narnia is no longer a viable destination at that age, where is?
Truth Teller fits the bill perfectly. Charlotte is a normal ten year old girl on holiday with her family. While wandering around the shops of the local town she finds a strange curio shop. She finds one of the objects in the shop interesting - a sort of snow globe without any snow. The odd little man who runs the shop gives it to her for free, but warns her that the price she pays might not be of the monetary kind.
That night while studying the globe she feels if she is falling into it and finds herself in a cold woodland, where she meets Elder. Very soon it is apparent to her that she is not anywhere near where she should be, if she is even on Earth at all anymore. Elder is an elf and he and his family try to help Charlotte find her way back home. Meanwhile dark forces are stirring and rumours of invasion are spreading.
Chambers has set out to provide an entry point into fantasy for younger (female) readers and has done a sterling job. My immediate reaction to this book was that it is flawless, in idea and execution. Although perhaps a little cliched for grizzle fantasy readers like myself it contains just enough strange creatures - elves, dwarves, giant wolves and druids - and a sprinkling of magic here and there to whisk the plot along. And it is whisked at some pace too, the narrative fluid and always in motion towards the books conclusion without much of a pause for breath.
Charlotte as the main character is well written and prone to modern turns of phrase that baffle her elven friends. Elder the elf boy she meets is charming and friendly even though he is as confused by Charlotte's plight as she is. The other characters are also very well drawn.
The story entwines the various threads into a whole that is easy to read and hard to forget. Reaching the last page was something I dreaded but like a lot of things the end of this book is just the start of the story of the Truth Teller.
If anyone is looking for a first book in fantasy, without the talking animals, this book fits the bill perfectly. Narnia for the iPhone generation? It's pretty close to that.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Attack the Block (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remember, remember the fifth of November…because that’s when the film Attack the Block (from the producers of “Shaun of the Dead”) begins – on Guy Fawkes Night. If you want to know what that is, use a search engine like I did (there’s even a catchy poem for this British holiday, too).
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Traffik (2018) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Verdict: Shock Filled Thriller
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Citadel (2012) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Tommy is a father with agoraphobia after he saw his wife attacked by a group of children, he is trying to be the good father for his new born child, but his fears are controlling the situation, he sees children trying to take his child, he needs to face his fears to make it through this trauma he is going through. Priest is a renegade man that is aggressively searching for a way to bring down the feral children, he sees Tommy as a chance to get the job done, even if it is against what his religion states. Marie is one of the social workers that will help Tommy, she is trying to help him through the medical side even if she is the one that puts him in contact with the priest. The Feral Children are the highlight of the film because they are genuinely frightening when they attack.
Performances – Aneurin Barnard in the leading role does make us feel for his character, we believe he has been through the trauma and is the desperation to save his family. James Cosmo is fun to watch as anti-priest figure. Wunmi Mosaku doesn’t do anything wrong in the supporting role, if only we could have seen more from the character.
Story – The story here follows a new father that is dealing with his own trauma while raising his new born child, which will see him needing to face off against feral child that feed on people’s fears. The early thing that must be pointed out here, comes from the idea that we are not full convinced that we are seeing the fears of the character dealt with, for the most part we are seeing one man terrorised but even the people without the fear seem to be targets too, this mostly confuses the rule point in place. the idea that the feral child live in the abandoned flat complex doesn’t improve on things either because you would think more incidents would happen. The part of the story that does standout and is interesting to watch would be seeing how Tommy is dealing with his own traumas while remaining strong facing the possibility of not being able to raise his own child because of his problems, sadly we don’t see enough of this addressed with the horror side of the story taking over, which simply put, isn’t as interesting.
Horror – The horror starts of being home invasion like horror, which worked for the illness Tommy had, but when we enter the flats, it does become the highlight of the action in the film, feeling dark, scary with anything able to jump out to get them.
Settings – The settings show us the run down neighbourhood in which Tommy lives, the support groups around it and most importantly the empty flat block which has the feral children in it.
Special Effects – The effects are used mostly look practical, with the moments surrounding the feral child being the most notable and scary ones.
Scene of the Movie – Inside the flat block.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It breaks the rules it sets up too easily.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that does take its time getting going, one the chaos is unleashed with get a highly intense final act which ramps the fear up to the max.
Overall: Slow Start, Strong Finish.
Performances – Aneurin Barnard in the leading role does make us feel for his character, we believe he has been through the trauma and is the desperation to save his family. James Cosmo is fun to watch as anti-priest figure. Wunmi Mosaku doesn’t do anything wrong in the supporting role, if only we could have seen more from the character.
Story – The story here follows a new father that is dealing with his own trauma while raising his new born child, which will see him needing to face off against feral child that feed on people’s fears. The early thing that must be pointed out here, comes from the idea that we are not full convinced that we are seeing the fears of the character dealt with, for the most part we are seeing one man terrorised but even the people without the fear seem to be targets too, this mostly confuses the rule point in place. the idea that the feral child live in the abandoned flat complex doesn’t improve on things either because you would think more incidents would happen. The part of the story that does standout and is interesting to watch would be seeing how Tommy is dealing with his own traumas while remaining strong facing the possibility of not being able to raise his own child because of his problems, sadly we don’t see enough of this addressed with the horror side of the story taking over, which simply put, isn’t as interesting.
Horror – The horror starts of being home invasion like horror, which worked for the illness Tommy had, but when we enter the flats, it does become the highlight of the action in the film, feeling dark, scary with anything able to jump out to get them.
Settings – The settings show us the run down neighbourhood in which Tommy lives, the support groups around it and most importantly the empty flat block which has the feral children in it.
Special Effects – The effects are used mostly look practical, with the moments surrounding the feral child being the most notable and scary ones.
Scene of the Movie – Inside the flat block.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It breaks the rules it sets up too easily.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that does take its time getting going, one the chaos is unleashed with get a highly intense final act which ramps the fear up to the max.
Overall: Slow Start, Strong Finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html