Search
Search results
Laura lou (304 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Nov 1, 2021
Gory. (1 more)
Good special effects
Plot holes (4 more)
Bad acting
Mistakes
Boring story
Ridiculously unrealistic
So many plot holes
Contains spoilers, click to show
Honestly one of the worst horror movies I’ve seen.
The acting throughout was so bad, particularly considering how high profile this movie series is.
There were multiple mistakes throughout, but the worst was during the mental patients fall from the hospital window. The camera switches to his point of view and you see the view he would have falling face first onto the floor, however when the camera switches back to a normal view he is lying face up on the floor. So unless he bounced and turned over this is a badly glaring mistake.
There were so many ridiculous plot holes but some of the worst were:
No parent would encourage teenage kids to join them, with weapons, on a manhunt for a seemingly indestructible mass murderer. It just would not happen.
Laurie had a major stomach surgery, no way would she be able to get up and run around the hospital like she did, even on pain killers.
And where did Vanessa go when she got out of the car and Michael began killing her husband and the others in the car. She had a gun, got out of the car and Michael was on the roof grabbing through the windows so why didn’t she at least try to shoot him. He was attacking her husband. She just seemingly disappeared then reappeared when he had done some killing..
All in all a poor film that I came so close to walking out of. The only reason I didn’t was because my partner thought I was joking she. I said let’s go home.
The acting throughout was so bad, particularly considering how high profile this movie series is.
There were multiple mistakes throughout, but the worst was during the mental patients fall from the hospital window. The camera switches to his point of view and you see the view he would have falling face first onto the floor, however when the camera switches back to a normal view he is lying face up on the floor. So unless he bounced and turned over this is a badly glaring mistake.
There were so many ridiculous plot holes but some of the worst were:
No parent would encourage teenage kids to join them, with weapons, on a manhunt for a seemingly indestructible mass murderer. It just would not happen.
Laurie had a major stomach surgery, no way would she be able to get up and run around the hospital like she did, even on pain killers.
And where did Vanessa go when she got out of the car and Michael began killing her husband and the others in the car. She had a gun, got out of the car and Michael was on the roof grabbing through the windows so why didn’t she at least try to shoot him. He was attacking her husband. She just seemingly disappeared then reappeared when he had done some killing..
All in all a poor film that I came so close to walking out of. The only reason I didn’t was because my partner thought I was joking she. I said let’s go home.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Dangerous Boy in Books
Nov 6, 2017
Filled with cliches, but a quick read
I would call this a guilty pleasure book. Why? Because it’s not the most greatest read out there but you read it anyway because something about it just draws you to continue reading. Whether it be characters, or the cheesy plot albeit ridiculous as it may be.
This is supposed to be a modern day retelling of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I see some similarities although the way it’s explained (the soul thing) is a bit of a stretch. At least with Jekyll/Hyde he had something concrete and explanatory (eg; the serum that gets him to change personalities).
The book itself is filled with oodles of cliches so it’s not for everyone. It may induce eye rolls and may have some readers frustrated and quit reading altogether. Why did I keep reading? It’s a very simple plot and there’s not much when it comes to twists and turns, there’s a bit of a creepy and chilly factor which was actually pretty well done and I stuck with it. Despite the plot being as it is, the writing was pretty good and I enjoyed it.
A couple of things however. I’m not sure what Madison really had to do with the story. She’s just your average mean girl but doesn’t really add to the plot (except for being a previous romance. Woopie) so to me, this was just unnecessary filler moments in the novel.
Harper isn’t really that likable and there were moments where she goes off the deep end into the realm of stupidity. I do admit though, she’s got good chemistry with Logan and the writing that conveys their feelings towards each other is well done. Logan seems to be a great boyfriend if it wasn’t for that fatal flaw. Harper does tend to have some annoying qualities to herself - being a forgiving doormat for one, and lacking common sense in particular stages of the story (seriously? You’re going to break into a house and you say: “hello?” can we say first one to die in a horror movie here?)
Although this book has quite a few flaws, I couldn’t help but enjoy reading it. It’s a very quick read and it’s like you’re watching a B movie but you enjoyed it despite the many cliches and things you normally wouldn’t watch. There’s just something about it that makes you want to continue reading it. I’m not going to recommend this one, but if you’re up for a quick read to get back into the reading groove, why not?
This is supposed to be a modern day retelling of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I see some similarities although the way it’s explained (the soul thing) is a bit of a stretch. At least with Jekyll/Hyde he had something concrete and explanatory (eg; the serum that gets him to change personalities).
The book itself is filled with oodles of cliches so it’s not for everyone. It may induce eye rolls and may have some readers frustrated and quit reading altogether. Why did I keep reading? It’s a very simple plot and there’s not much when it comes to twists and turns, there’s a bit of a creepy and chilly factor which was actually pretty well done and I stuck with it. Despite the plot being as it is, the writing was pretty good and I enjoyed it.
A couple of things however. I’m not sure what Madison really had to do with the story. She’s just your average mean girl but doesn’t really add to the plot (except for being a previous romance. Woopie) so to me, this was just unnecessary filler moments in the novel.
Harper isn’t really that likable and there were moments where she goes off the deep end into the realm of stupidity. I do admit though, she’s got good chemistry with Logan and the writing that conveys their feelings towards each other is well done. Logan seems to be a great boyfriend if it wasn’t for that fatal flaw. Harper does tend to have some annoying qualities to herself - being a forgiving doormat for one, and lacking common sense in particular stages of the story (seriously? You’re going to break into a house and you say: “hello?” can we say first one to die in a horror movie here?)
Although this book has quite a few flaws, I couldn’t help but enjoy reading it. It’s a very quick read and it’s like you’re watching a B movie but you enjoyed it despite the many cliches and things you normally wouldn’t watch. There’s just something about it that makes you want to continue reading it. I’m not going to recommend this one, but if you’re up for a quick read to get back into the reading groove, why not?
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
We film-goers really can’t get enough of zombies. The brain-munching, cannibalistic horrors used to be the stuff of nightmares. But as our tastes became more extreme, the flesh-eaters managed to slip into the mainstream with genre-bending films at the forefront of zombie resurgence.
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Ghosts of Manor House in Books
Jan 31, 2019
Ghosts of Manor House by Matt Powers is a book with a lot of unmet potential, to put things nicely. It’s clear the author spent a lot of time planning his story out, but beyond that… well, it’s lacking. It also doesn’t help that the majority of the book is written in passive voice–a pet peeve of mine. Passive voice really disrupts my flow and, despite having read the most recent edition sent to me by the author, I feel the book could use another go-over from an editor.
The characters of Ghosts of Manor House exist, in so much as the fact that they are present in the book. If you’re looking for a reason to get attached to any of them though, you won’t find it. There’s a strange sort of distance between the reader and the main characters, Edmund and Charlie. There’s also no depth to either of them. In fact, there’s more of a connection to minor characters. I absolutely hate it when I can’t feel any sort of emotion for a fictional character; it makes whatever happens to them less severe. When it comes to horror, this is a huge letdown. I want to feel fear for the protagonist in a story, I want to be on the edge of my seat with excitement. In this book… there was none of that.
When it comes to plot, Ghosts of Manor House is a mixed bag of tricks and treats. There’s several continuity issues and the whole use of some wacky sort of time travel is a huge turn off. It took me a little while to realize what was going on because Powers doesn’t explain or note the presence of this science-fiction element. Additionally, the locale changes from Hope County to Salem County, though after that change, Powers sticks with the latter. On the good side of things, Powers certainly excels at detailing a haunted location. If you’ve read Kill Creek, you might remember the main character, Sam McGarver, lecturing about the importance of this in horror novels. A well-thought out history for these spooky places is paramount to maintaining interest and in Ghosts of Manor House, Manor House’s past is most definitely intriguing.
Overall, I feel like there’s a lot that went to waste with this book. While it is deliciously short, I would have preferred reading something longer, where I could actually develop feelings and connections to the characters, as opposed to feeling like I watched a dull movie. I would like to thank the author for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
The characters of Ghosts of Manor House exist, in so much as the fact that they are present in the book. If you’re looking for a reason to get attached to any of them though, you won’t find it. There’s a strange sort of distance between the reader and the main characters, Edmund and Charlie. There’s also no depth to either of them. In fact, there’s more of a connection to minor characters. I absolutely hate it when I can’t feel any sort of emotion for a fictional character; it makes whatever happens to them less severe. When it comes to horror, this is a huge letdown. I want to feel fear for the protagonist in a story, I want to be on the edge of my seat with excitement. In this book… there was none of that.
When it comes to plot, Ghosts of Manor House is a mixed bag of tricks and treats. There’s several continuity issues and the whole use of some wacky sort of time travel is a huge turn off. It took me a little while to realize what was going on because Powers doesn’t explain or note the presence of this science-fiction element. Additionally, the locale changes from Hope County to Salem County, though after that change, Powers sticks with the latter. On the good side of things, Powers certainly excels at detailing a haunted location. If you’ve read Kill Creek, you might remember the main character, Sam McGarver, lecturing about the importance of this in horror novels. A well-thought out history for these spooky places is paramount to maintaining interest and in Ghosts of Manor House, Manor House’s past is most definitely intriguing.
Overall, I feel like there’s a lot that went to waste with this book. While it is deliciously short, I would have preferred reading something longer, where I could actually develop feelings and connections to the characters, as opposed to feeling like I watched a dull movie. I would like to thank the author for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sex and the City 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
So what happens after you finally marry Mr. Right (or in this case, Mr. Big)? Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Big (Chris Noth) have been married for almost 2 years now and are in danger of falling into a tired routine. After eschewing the latest fashions for classic furnishings to make their new flat a home, Carrie no longer laments over her singlehood. Instead she bemoans becoming part of an old, married couple. She bristles at the idea of staying home and eating takeout while her husband just wants to put his feet up on the couch.
Charlotte (Kristin Davis) remains the picture-perfect mother and wife, adding a new baby to her home. One that cries constantly and forces her to hire a nanny. A buxom, Irish nanny named Erin who quickly earns the fitting nickname “Erin Go Bra-less” from Charlotte’s best friends. Watch Charlotte’s cheery smile become brittle and harder to keep in place as the demands of motherhood and doubts the ability of her husband Harry (Evan Handler) to resist temptation become too much to handle.
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is reconciled with Steve (David Eigenberg), and is finally a partner at her law firm but it hasn’t brought her the satisfaction she thought it would. She’s stressed and aggravated by a senior partner who demeans her and she starts to question whether being an attorney is worth it anymore.
Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is very much the same bawdy temptress, minus her boy-toy, plus a lot of vitamins to stave off menopausal symptoms. This time around, no major drama sends the ladies off on an exotic trip, just Samantha working her public relations charm on a shiekh with a palatial hotel. Apparently, sometimes girls just need to getaway to Abu-Dhabi. The movie soon becomes an indulgent showcase of excess from a flight in a plane equipped with individual suites, a bar & lounge, to a Maybach and a personal butler for each of the ladies.
Anyone watching SATC2 without the background of the series and the first film will think they entered an alien world of shallow, whiny women who like to wear clashing colors and ridiculous hats. Fans of the series will probably forgive the tired puns and trite storylines to embrace the familiar: four friends in fabulous, outrageous, fashion and comical situations, with an extravagant, lush backdrop.
Screened in a theater where women outnumbered men 3 to 1, many of the laughs were tinged with almost as much horror as delight. I usually enjoy musical numbers in movies, but I fought the urge to cover my eyes when Liza Minelli performed Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” at a wedding early in the movie. The girlfriends’ karaoke rendition of “I Am Woman” was also an uncomfortable moment for all its corniness. But amidst the splashy abundance, there were moments of honest friendship that resonated, unfortunately they’re overshadowed by annoying antics and reckless decisions.
Sure to spark lively debates on friendship, relationships, careers, and questionable fashion, this is still an entertaining film that, if nothing else, would make a great date night movie with your girlfriends. Especially those whose friendships have spanned decades and who can recognize a little bit of themselves in these women. Note to men: if you want to know where the women may be this weekend, the theaters would be a good bet.
Charlotte (Kristin Davis) remains the picture-perfect mother and wife, adding a new baby to her home. One that cries constantly and forces her to hire a nanny. A buxom, Irish nanny named Erin who quickly earns the fitting nickname “Erin Go Bra-less” from Charlotte’s best friends. Watch Charlotte’s cheery smile become brittle and harder to keep in place as the demands of motherhood and doubts the ability of her husband Harry (Evan Handler) to resist temptation become too much to handle.
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is reconciled with Steve (David Eigenberg), and is finally a partner at her law firm but it hasn’t brought her the satisfaction she thought it would. She’s stressed and aggravated by a senior partner who demeans her and she starts to question whether being an attorney is worth it anymore.
Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is very much the same bawdy temptress, minus her boy-toy, plus a lot of vitamins to stave off menopausal symptoms. This time around, no major drama sends the ladies off on an exotic trip, just Samantha working her public relations charm on a shiekh with a palatial hotel. Apparently, sometimes girls just need to getaway to Abu-Dhabi. The movie soon becomes an indulgent showcase of excess from a flight in a plane equipped with individual suites, a bar & lounge, to a Maybach and a personal butler for each of the ladies.
Anyone watching SATC2 without the background of the series and the first film will think they entered an alien world of shallow, whiny women who like to wear clashing colors and ridiculous hats. Fans of the series will probably forgive the tired puns and trite storylines to embrace the familiar: four friends in fabulous, outrageous, fashion and comical situations, with an extravagant, lush backdrop.
Screened in a theater where women outnumbered men 3 to 1, many of the laughs were tinged with almost as much horror as delight. I usually enjoy musical numbers in movies, but I fought the urge to cover my eyes when Liza Minelli performed Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” at a wedding early in the movie. The girlfriends’ karaoke rendition of “I Am Woman” was also an uncomfortable moment for all its corniness. But amidst the splashy abundance, there were moments of honest friendship that resonated, unfortunately they’re overshadowed by annoying antics and reckless decisions.
Sure to spark lively debates on friendship, relationships, careers, and questionable fashion, this is still an entertaining film that, if nothing else, would make a great date night movie with your girlfriends. Especially those whose friendships have spanned decades and who can recognize a little bit of themselves in these women. Note to men: if you want to know where the women may be this weekend, the theaters would be a good bet.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hell House LLC (2015) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
I'd heard very little about Hell House LLC before watching it and hadn't even seen the trailer either. But, it had been highly recommended by a few people and had been sitting on my Amazon Prime watch-list for some time anyway, so I decided to give it a shot. It's a found footage horror, which has been done to death now, so it's easy to go into another one feeling cynical and apprehensive. However, there is still the occasional hidden gem out there waiting to be found and, for me, Hell House LLC turned out to be one of them.
The plot surrounds a Halloween house tour in an old abandoned hotel in a small American town. On opening night, as dozens of thrill-seekers descend on the house to enjoy the various mannequins and lighting effects that have been setup to try and scare them, there is an incident down in the basement. Panic ensues as everyone tries to locate the exits and there are a number of mysterious deaths, along with numerous injuries. We see a YouTube video that somebody recorded during their tour, but they didn't quite make it to the basement to capture what went on, so all we see is them making a hasty exit. Five years on and the hotel is now boarded up, while the whole tragedy remains unexplained. Now though, the sole survivor of the crew responsible for putting on the event has approached a documentary crew with a bunch of video tapes that were recorded by the team in the run-up to opening night, so hopefully the truth will finally be revealed.
We begin with the team driving to the hotel for the first time, before going inside to check it all out. They've put on Halloween house tours before, but this one is a bit of a challenge due to the derelict nature of the hotel. First they need to get power to the place, in order to setup safety cameras in every room and corridor, strobe lighting etc. Then they start setting up the various rooms, working out themes and hiring a small group of actors to dress up and scare people during the tour. Early on in the movie, these scenes are interspersed with interviews from reporters, photographers and historians who recount some of the troubled history of the hotel and give us a bit more detail as to what happened during and after the events of the tours opening night.
The crew of five are all staying in the hotel as they work towards the big day, all the while documenting their progress and the various challenges they encounter. The place is seriously creepy anyway and the movie takes it's time in establishing the characters and making sure you're familiar with everything they've installed and the general layout of the hotel before mysterious things start happening, usually at night while everyone is trying to sleep. At first, things are basic enough that it's easy for them to accuse someone of trying to prank the others, but they soon start to increase in intensity and creepiness. Despite all common sense, preparations still continue for the big night which, as we already know, turns out to be a big mistake.
I really liked Hell House LLC. I'm still not actually sure what happened down in the basement, or afterwards for that matter, but the build up to it really did work well for me and there were some very effective and genuinely unsettling moments. And I do love feeling unsettled by a movie!
The plot surrounds a Halloween house tour in an old abandoned hotel in a small American town. On opening night, as dozens of thrill-seekers descend on the house to enjoy the various mannequins and lighting effects that have been setup to try and scare them, there is an incident down in the basement. Panic ensues as everyone tries to locate the exits and there are a number of mysterious deaths, along with numerous injuries. We see a YouTube video that somebody recorded during their tour, but they didn't quite make it to the basement to capture what went on, so all we see is them making a hasty exit. Five years on and the hotel is now boarded up, while the whole tragedy remains unexplained. Now though, the sole survivor of the crew responsible for putting on the event has approached a documentary crew with a bunch of video tapes that were recorded by the team in the run-up to opening night, so hopefully the truth will finally be revealed.
We begin with the team driving to the hotel for the first time, before going inside to check it all out. They've put on Halloween house tours before, but this one is a bit of a challenge due to the derelict nature of the hotel. First they need to get power to the place, in order to setup safety cameras in every room and corridor, strobe lighting etc. Then they start setting up the various rooms, working out themes and hiring a small group of actors to dress up and scare people during the tour. Early on in the movie, these scenes are interspersed with interviews from reporters, photographers and historians who recount some of the troubled history of the hotel and give us a bit more detail as to what happened during and after the events of the tours opening night.
The crew of five are all staying in the hotel as they work towards the big day, all the while documenting their progress and the various challenges they encounter. The place is seriously creepy anyway and the movie takes it's time in establishing the characters and making sure you're familiar with everything they've installed and the general layout of the hotel before mysterious things start happening, usually at night while everyone is trying to sleep. At first, things are basic enough that it's easy for them to accuse someone of trying to prank the others, but they soon start to increase in intensity and creepiness. Despite all common sense, preparations still continue for the big night which, as we already know, turns out to be a big mistake.
I really liked Hell House LLC. I'm still not actually sure what happened down in the basement, or afterwards for that matter, but the build up to it really did work well for me and there were some very effective and genuinely unsettling moments. And I do love feeling unsettled by a movie!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
See no evil
The Invisible Man is not a movie about an Invisible Man and certainly not the horror movie its being promoted as, instead its a tight little scifi esq thriller about domestic violence and the lingering effects domestic abuse can bring. Directed by the same director of the absolutley fantastic film Upgrade The invisible man could almost be a companion piece in a sense or even take place in the same world as Upgrade. From the titles its clear tension and impending dread is absolutely nailed here and as we look in on our lead character we can see just how extreme and unsafe her situation/relationship has become. Shes a victim trapped by an abusive and obsessive partner and before her life becomes any more at risk she escapes, but what she then leaves herself open to is a life of paraninoia, mental scaring, trauma, torture and living life in constant fear that her partner will come for her again. Shes never free from him and the way the film uses the invisible man as a metaphor is extremely clever as it shows her trying to live a normal life while clearly completely damaged by the hold one man had on her and by the echoes of the abuse she recived from him (in a sense its like hes still there constantly breathing over her shoulder). Everything is done well and the film really benefits from its slow pace as it helps us as a viewer really get invested into this character and shows just how damaged she has become from past events. Its score is phenomenal too helping ramp up the fear and tension with its intense futuristic droning and screeching. When violence hits its impactful, brutal and shocking as the long build up for it makes it seem like it comes out of nowhere preserving shock value perfectly. Fight scenes are filmed just like the ones from Upgrade full of energy/style and are just as unique/cool while making subtle nods to that film too. Acting is really good especially Elisabeth Moss watching her evolve as a character and in sense use the traits of the person she hates to become stronger is riviting and Eldis Hodge gives a great support role too. Its to bad at times the acting its hurt unnecessarily however by very exposition heavy dialog. If youve seen the trailer for this movie the invisible man reveal will have been spoilt for you as will too a crucial story point however overall as a film what Leigh Whannell has achieved here with this film is certainly very very brave and vastly diffrent from the way these films usually play out. Hes given a very clever and unique take on a character that has already been done to death in films and while it was predictable to a certain extent I applaud him for not going for the lazy done to death almost supernatural approach to this character. The Invisible man is a breath of fresh air amongst crap like fantasy island/the boy 2 and while by no means perfect its brave and realistic portrayals of the after effects of domestic abuse are shocking, well represented and tuff to watch at times. Invisible man is a pleasant surprise but will no doubt be far to slow and intelligent for those just looking for mere jump scares. That being said if this director keeps up this great track record I wouldnt be surprised if bigger film companies start seeking him out very soon.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rose: A Love Story (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Married couple Sam (Matt Stokoe) and Rose (Sophie Rundle) are living a quiet, simple life in a remote woodland farmhouse. While Rose spends her days indoors, tapping out a novel on a typewriter, Sam is out in the peaceful, snow-covered woods, setting traps and hunting animals. But, right from the outset, it’s clear that this is anything but a relaxing couples retreat.
As Sam cautiously goes about his work, rifle in hand, it’s obvious that he is alert and on edge, flinching at the slightest sounds that come from beyond the trees. Persistent, ominous music also informs us that something isn't quite right and succeeds in putting us quickly on edge too. And when Sam does return to the farmhouse, we learn that Rose has been locked inside, with all the windows boarded up, only the slightest slivers of light entering the gloomy rooms.
Sam and Rose are clearly a couple in love, their actions and conversations appearing genuine and normal. But occasionally the topic of conversation veers towards the unusual, and we continue to be drip-fed even more sinister clues as to what’s actually going on in their lives. When Rose cuts herself while preparing dinner, black veins pulse throughout her finger. Meanwhile, Sam heads off to an ultraviolet-lit room, where he attaches leeches to his body, casually sitting to read a book while they set to work, gorging on his blood. When the couple head outside for a walk one night, Rose wears a face mask while Sam doesn’t. And she talks of “a poison inside her”. You have a fairly good idea of what's going on, but the answers to any questions you have don't come easy, and we're constantly left guessing at which direction the movie is going to take.
Jennifer Sheridan’s feature directorial debut has a wonderfully claustrophobic feel to it, perfectly capturing the feeling of isolation against the beautiful backdrop of a Welsh forest in Winter. Questions hang throughout - how did Rose get this way, what kind of life did the couple lead beforehand, what actually is this illness doing or going to do to her? We're kept in suspense throughout and even when a young runaway called Amber stumbles across the couple, and stays with them overnight, the answers still don’t come easy. Amber just has to accept the fact that Sam is dropping his trousers in front of her in order to attach leeches to himself. And that she must sleep with the ultraviolet light on in her room...
As we neared the very end of the movie, I began to wonder if any of those answers would ever come, or if we would be left to make our own minds up. But thankfully a quick and frantic last-minute change of pace changed all of that, and still managed to end on something of a cliffhanger!
Writer Matt Stokoe (who also plays Sam) says of ‘Rose’ that while watching traditional vampire movies he was struck by the macabre, horror aspects of the vampire genre and the general avoidance of emotional depth shown in the figure of the ‘monster’. The result of his observations is a beautifully simple movie that focuses more on the love of a married couple than the monster that threatens to overpower their relationship. Sam shows that he will do anything for Rose as they struggle with her life-altering illness. Theirs is indeed a true love story.
As Sam cautiously goes about his work, rifle in hand, it’s obvious that he is alert and on edge, flinching at the slightest sounds that come from beyond the trees. Persistent, ominous music also informs us that something isn't quite right and succeeds in putting us quickly on edge too. And when Sam does return to the farmhouse, we learn that Rose has been locked inside, with all the windows boarded up, only the slightest slivers of light entering the gloomy rooms.
Sam and Rose are clearly a couple in love, their actions and conversations appearing genuine and normal. But occasionally the topic of conversation veers towards the unusual, and we continue to be drip-fed even more sinister clues as to what’s actually going on in their lives. When Rose cuts herself while preparing dinner, black veins pulse throughout her finger. Meanwhile, Sam heads off to an ultraviolet-lit room, where he attaches leeches to his body, casually sitting to read a book while they set to work, gorging on his blood. When the couple head outside for a walk one night, Rose wears a face mask while Sam doesn’t. And she talks of “a poison inside her”. You have a fairly good idea of what's going on, but the answers to any questions you have don't come easy, and we're constantly left guessing at which direction the movie is going to take.
Jennifer Sheridan’s feature directorial debut has a wonderfully claustrophobic feel to it, perfectly capturing the feeling of isolation against the beautiful backdrop of a Welsh forest in Winter. Questions hang throughout - how did Rose get this way, what kind of life did the couple lead beforehand, what actually is this illness doing or going to do to her? We're kept in suspense throughout and even when a young runaway called Amber stumbles across the couple, and stays with them overnight, the answers still don’t come easy. Amber just has to accept the fact that Sam is dropping his trousers in front of her in order to attach leeches to himself. And that she must sleep with the ultraviolet light on in her room...
As we neared the very end of the movie, I began to wonder if any of those answers would ever come, or if we would be left to make our own minds up. But thankfully a quick and frantic last-minute change of pace changed all of that, and still managed to end on something of a cliffhanger!
Writer Matt Stokoe (who also plays Sam) says of ‘Rose’ that while watching traditional vampire movies he was struck by the macabre, horror aspects of the vampire genre and the general avoidance of emotional depth shown in the figure of the ‘monster’. The result of his observations is a beautifully simple movie that focuses more on the love of a married couple than the monster that threatens to overpower their relationship. Sam shows that he will do anything for Rose as they struggle with her life-altering illness. Theirs is indeed a true love story.