Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Does it live up to the hype?
When it came to choosing a director for Star Wars: the Force Awakens, there really was only one choice: J.J Abrams. He had the difficult task of bringing the beloved Star Trek series back onto the big screen after numerous misfiring movies and did so with two near-perfect films.
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Paper Towns in Books
Dec 7, 2018
This was my book of the month for March 2014. You can view and reblog my Tumblr post here: http://fuzzysparrow.tumblr.com/post/81305903630/x
<i>Paper Towns</i> is a brilliantly written novel by John Green. Having only previously read <i>The Fault in our Stars</i> I have little to compare it to and cannot say whether it is his best. I am writing this less that half an hour after finishing <i>Paper Towns</i> therefore it is still fresh in my mind, which may explain my slight preference over <i>TFIOS</i>. However the story lines are so different that it is not really fair to compare them.
Set in Orlando, Florida, <i>Paper Towns</i> is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: “As I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.” Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Q’s bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the world’s largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margo’s best friend and Ben’s soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margo’s hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Q’s mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to <i>The Fault in our Stars</i>, Green has filled <i>Paper Towns</i> with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
<i>Paper Towns</i> can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating “I wanted Margo’s disappearance to change me; but it hasn’t, not really” I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Q’s development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
<i>Paper Towns</i> is a brilliantly written novel by John Green. Having only previously read <i>The Fault in our Stars</i> I have little to compare it to and cannot say whether it is his best. I am writing this less that half an hour after finishing <i>Paper Towns</i> therefore it is still fresh in my mind, which may explain my slight preference over <i>TFIOS</i>. However the story lines are so different that it is not really fair to compare them.
Set in Orlando, Florida, <i>Paper Towns</i> is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: “As I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.” Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Q’s bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the world’s largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margo’s best friend and Ben’s soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margo’s hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Q’s mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to <i>The Fault in our Stars</i>, Green has filled <i>Paper Towns</i> with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
<i>Paper Towns</i> can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating “I wanted Margo’s disappearance to change me; but it hasn’t, not really” I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Q’s development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Just Like in the Movies (Summer Heat) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
This review was originally posted over on Lily Loves Indie here - http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=201
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
Roxanne (13 KP) rated Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight in Books
Nov 14, 2018
<b>*This review contains possible spoilers as I will be using quotes*</b>
I thought I would mention that I am rating my enjoyment of this book which is 2 stars; if I was to rate the personality of the author I would be giving it minus stars.
This book made me feel very uncomfortable in places and so I could not give this a higher rating because I did not enjoy it, I found it interesting but not enjoyable.
I was only a few pages in when I came across intentional animal cruelty where this horrible woman attempts to drown an Opossum...animal abuse is something I will not tolerate no matter if you cover it up by saying you're 'ill'. This person is not humane and refused to help this defenseless creature due to it's safety not being an <i>"upside for me"</i>. And it gets worse...
<img src="http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/greenliving/uploads/2012/03/baby-virginia-opossum.jpg"; width="280" height="160"/>
<b>Look at that face! Look at it!</b>
I am truly disgusted by that behaviour and the behaviour that follows throughout the whole of the book, she goes on to say how she is not crazy, dangerous or a murderer...yet she does that.
Would it put me and her on the same path if I reacted in anger?
<img src="http://media3.giphy.com/media/2vCA7jpfORJoA/200_s.gif"; width="250" height="160"/>
Naaaaaah...I think it's justified.
She attempts to argue whether her sociopathic traits are a result of 'nature' or 'nuture' and blames the family tree for her unsociable ways as her grandfather was <i>exceptionally cold</i>, on the other hand, I have never met (or read about) someone so full of themself...NEVER EVER...I'm surprised that she can fit her head through doors. She uses this 'God like' view of herself to look down upon others, including insulting the reader by saying how much more intelligent she is compared to you. Face reality...why on earth would anyone choose to read your book if you're just out to offend them? (I realize this comes with being 'a sociopath') but I wanted the whys and hows...not to be offended.
<img src="http://sarahsaysreadbooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/not-interested.gif?w=500"; width="200" height="160"/>
M.E Thomas will only enter situations if it will benefit her, this includes making friends where she will seek out their weaknesses to eventually use against them...just for fun, she says <i>"I like to imagine that I have ruined people"</i> and she likes to humour people for her own personal gain. Thomas sees this as a great strength and believes others wish to be like her as she feels a lot less emotion and remorse than the majority of other people; <i>"Normal people feel emotions that I simply don't"</i> she pities us, whereas I pity her.
Another thing that she did which I found disgusting was abandoning a friend who was upset as her dad had cancer...yes you read that right... abandoned a <b>friend</b> because her dad had <b>CANCER</b>.
<img src="http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/shock-gif.gif"; width="230" height="160"/>
She thought the behaviour was acceptable as she <i>routinely disposed of people once their burden to me exceeded their utility</i>. Another example of 'friend abuse' would be towards her openly gay female coworker, who was adopted as a child, where Thomas gathered as much information as possible about her in order to destroy her...nice.
People like Thomas are the ones who I wish to avoid at all costs! I admit I have met my fair share of sociopaths as I believe I am picked out by them due to being easily manipulated, however, as I mature I hope to change that. She is nothing but a bully who tears people to pieces, picking on those with disabilities saying because of this 'weakness' they were just asking for a slap. Thomas is the only one here who is asking for a slap!
I admit the book was interesting, I was able to understand more about sociopaths and what to look out for so I can avoid them...that is all.
<img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb0875f182f29fa753415dcd6a5812a5/tumblr_n4kc2ffJui1txb8sho1_500.gif"; width="280" height="160"/>
I thought I would mention that I am rating my enjoyment of this book which is 2 stars; if I was to rate the personality of the author I would be giving it minus stars.
This book made me feel very uncomfortable in places and so I could not give this a higher rating because I did not enjoy it, I found it interesting but not enjoyable.
I was only a few pages in when I came across intentional animal cruelty where this horrible woman attempts to drown an Opossum...animal abuse is something I will not tolerate no matter if you cover it up by saying you're 'ill'. This person is not humane and refused to help this defenseless creature due to it's safety not being an <i>"upside for me"</i>. And it gets worse...
<img src="http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/greenliving/uploads/2012/03/baby-virginia-opossum.jpg"; width="280" height="160"/>
<b>Look at that face! Look at it!</b>
I am truly disgusted by that behaviour and the behaviour that follows throughout the whole of the book, she goes on to say how she is not crazy, dangerous or a murderer...yet she does that.
Would it put me and her on the same path if I reacted in anger?
<img src="http://media3.giphy.com/media/2vCA7jpfORJoA/200_s.gif"; width="250" height="160"/>
Naaaaaah...I think it's justified.
She attempts to argue whether her sociopathic traits are a result of 'nature' or 'nuture' and blames the family tree for her unsociable ways as her grandfather was <i>exceptionally cold</i>, on the other hand, I have never met (or read about) someone so full of themself...NEVER EVER...I'm surprised that she can fit her head through doors. She uses this 'God like' view of herself to look down upon others, including insulting the reader by saying how much more intelligent she is compared to you. Face reality...why on earth would anyone choose to read your book if you're just out to offend them? (I realize this comes with being 'a sociopath') but I wanted the whys and hows...not to be offended.
<img src="http://sarahsaysreadbooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/not-interested.gif?w=500"; width="200" height="160"/>
M.E Thomas will only enter situations if it will benefit her, this includes making friends where she will seek out their weaknesses to eventually use against them...just for fun, she says <i>"I like to imagine that I have ruined people"</i> and she likes to humour people for her own personal gain. Thomas sees this as a great strength and believes others wish to be like her as she feels a lot less emotion and remorse than the majority of other people; <i>"Normal people feel emotions that I simply don't"</i> she pities us, whereas I pity her.
Another thing that she did which I found disgusting was abandoning a friend who was upset as her dad had cancer...yes you read that right... abandoned a <b>friend</b> because her dad had <b>CANCER</b>.
<img src="http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/shock-gif.gif"; width="230" height="160"/>
She thought the behaviour was acceptable as she <i>routinely disposed of people once their burden to me exceeded their utility</i>. Another example of 'friend abuse' would be towards her openly gay female coworker, who was adopted as a child, where Thomas gathered as much information as possible about her in order to destroy her...nice.
People like Thomas are the ones who I wish to avoid at all costs! I admit I have met my fair share of sociopaths as I believe I am picked out by them due to being easily manipulated, however, as I mature I hope to change that. She is nothing but a bully who tears people to pieces, picking on those with disabilities saying because of this 'weakness' they were just asking for a slap. Thomas is the only one here who is asking for a slap!
I admit the book was interesting, I was able to understand more about sociopaths and what to look out for so I can avoid them...that is all.
<img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb0875f182f29fa753415dcd6a5812a5/tumblr_n4kc2ffJui1txb8sho1_500.gif"; width="280" height="160"/>
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.