Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Village (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep within a lush meadow a thriving community is enjoying a communal dinner following the passing of a young member of the town. The smiles and laughter that emerge from those seated at the table hide that fact that the town lives in perpetual fear of an unspeakable evil.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Lone Wolf McQuade (1983) in Movies
Oct 6, 2017
L is for Lethal
Contains spoilers, click to show
Lone Wolf McQuade (P. 2/9/08)
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated It’s A Sin in TV
Feb 7, 2021
Outstanding drama
It’s A Sin is the latest drama from the mind of Russell T Davies, the man behind Queer as Folk, Cucumber and the revival of Doctor Who back in 2005. It follows a group of gay men and their friends in London from 1981 to 1991, depicting how the developing HIV and AIDS crisis impacted on their lives.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PC version of Evil Dead: The Game in Video Games
Jun 1, 2022
Back in 1981, Director Sam Raimi unleashed the Evil Dead on audiences and in doing so ignited his career as well as that of star Bruce Campbell. The subsequent sequels only further cemented dysfunctional hero Ash Williams into Pop Culture history as did the recent television series which returned the character to eager fans.
Saber Interactive has given fans a chance to play as Ash or several of the characters from the series with Evil Dead: The Game and take the battle to the demonic hordes and plenty of humor, horror, and action along the way.
The game is played from the third-person perspective and online players can enjoy cross-play so that players on all systems can play with one another. In the multiplayer mode, up to four players can team up to get missing pages of a text over a dark and vast map that is littered with demons and can have a player-controlled demon in the mix as well.
Players will be able to arm up by locating guns, knives, swords, and ammunition along the way as well as matches which are key to lighting up areas to keep enemies from advancing. Ammunition is in limited supply so players will have to be selective about combat as blowing away enemies is tons of fun but having to mix it up or run is not always wise when they attack in masses.
The maps are very large and there are vehicles available that are handy in running down enemies and making it to remote areas of the map. Along the way, there are shops, cabins, homes, and other locales where players can find needed objects to survive.
The longer a player operates in the dark or away from other players makes them increase in fear which allows them to be possessed and turn on their fellow players. When a player is low on health they can regain it by drinking cola that is found around the map or by being assisted by a fellow player which is not easy in the midst of combat as helping others can place you at risk.
The goal is to get a legendary dagger and take on the evil leaders which if successful wins the rounds for the players and their XP levels up. Players also have the option for a regular or furious attack as well as special moves which recharge over time.
The solo portion of the game is set in chapters and requires Ash to complete various tasks to advance to the next one. I found this to be very challenging as at times the maps are so dark it is hard to navigate or see properly and without players to help out, it can be a frustrating defeat.
The game has decent graphics and sound and the numerous clips of star Bruce Campbell offering wisdom and quips are very enjoyable and sets the tone for the game well. The attention to detail from the movies is also very enjoyable as players will want to make sure to take a good look around the cabins to get their nostalgia fix.
The game is a fun diversion and fun in groups and gives fans of the series the action and nostalgia they have come to expect. Some may cite a lack of initial depth to the gameplay and maps but I am sure as time goes on and more updates arrive, the game will continue to grow.
For now, Evil Dead: The Game offers enough action, humor, and nostalgia to keep fans happy.
3.5 stars out of 5
Saber Interactive has given fans a chance to play as Ash or several of the characters from the series with Evil Dead: The Game and take the battle to the demonic hordes and plenty of humor, horror, and action along the way.
The game is played from the third-person perspective and online players can enjoy cross-play so that players on all systems can play with one another. In the multiplayer mode, up to four players can team up to get missing pages of a text over a dark and vast map that is littered with demons and can have a player-controlled demon in the mix as well.
Players will be able to arm up by locating guns, knives, swords, and ammunition along the way as well as matches which are key to lighting up areas to keep enemies from advancing. Ammunition is in limited supply so players will have to be selective about combat as blowing away enemies is tons of fun but having to mix it up or run is not always wise when they attack in masses.
The maps are very large and there are vehicles available that are handy in running down enemies and making it to remote areas of the map. Along the way, there are shops, cabins, homes, and other locales where players can find needed objects to survive.
The longer a player operates in the dark or away from other players makes them increase in fear which allows them to be possessed and turn on their fellow players. When a player is low on health they can regain it by drinking cola that is found around the map or by being assisted by a fellow player which is not easy in the midst of combat as helping others can place you at risk.
The goal is to get a legendary dagger and take on the evil leaders which if successful wins the rounds for the players and their XP levels up. Players also have the option for a regular or furious attack as well as special moves which recharge over time.
The solo portion of the game is set in chapters and requires Ash to complete various tasks to advance to the next one. I found this to be very challenging as at times the maps are so dark it is hard to navigate or see properly and without players to help out, it can be a frustrating defeat.
The game has decent graphics and sound and the numerous clips of star Bruce Campbell offering wisdom and quips are very enjoyable and sets the tone for the game well. The attention to detail from the movies is also very enjoyable as players will want to make sure to take a good look around the cabins to get their nostalgia fix.
The game is a fun diversion and fun in groups and gives fans of the series the action and nostalgia they have come to expect. Some may cite a lack of initial depth to the gameplay and maps but I am sure as time goes on and more updates arrive, the game will continue to grow.
For now, Evil Dead: The Game offers enough action, humor, and nostalgia to keep fans happy.
3.5 stars out of 5
Darren (1599 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Bill was always considered the leader of the gang, he went onto write books and coming back he must face the fear about his brother’s death. Beverly has married an abusive rich man that she wants to escape from, which sees her return to Derry, where she could recapture her own love interest from childhood. Richie is a stand up comedian that is just how you would imagine him to grow up to be like, he gets plenty of laughs through the film. Mike never left Derry, he has been studying how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, he calls everybody back to the town. Ben was the fat kid, he transformed himself and became an architect with great success, he will see this return as a chance to tell Beverly how he feels. Eddie is reluctant to return though it does get him away from his wife, that is just like his mother, he will need to overcome the fears which have held him back before. Stanley is one of the group that doesn’t return, he has his reasons and it poses the reality of what will come with returning. Pennywise is the evil figure, who mostly looks like a clown, though he can become anything he wants to play into the fears. It is strange that we just don’t get that invested in the adult versions of the characters.
Performances – Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy are the two biggest names in the film, they are both fine, because nobody is a true main character, the two could do more and McAvoy is difficult to watch because his choice of accent reminds me about the 10-year-old he plays in Split. Bill Hader and James Ransone are the stars of the returning characters, they still have great chemistry. Isaiah Mustafa and Jay Ryan are both solid enough, though the characters seem to have swapped around.
Story – The story is the second part of the massive book, it follows the adult versions of the losers club that must return to fight Pennywise once again. This is a very long story, it is just under 3 hours long, which does feel like it drags along at times, once problem comes with more flashbacks with hauntings, there is no peril here, because we know the adult versions live. One of the strengths in the film is the idea of being reunited after years away with friends, it does feel natural and just how you would imagine it being. One of the issues I found in the first film was that Ben was the one that spent time learning the history of the town, while Mike did barely anything, it confused me because I always remembered it being Mike that understood the history, here it is Mike and Ben doesn’t seem to care anymore, add in the weird love triangle and you will feel like we have more that didn’t need to be here too.
Horror – The horror side of the film follows the hauntings that both the kids and adults go through, it is more just separate characters getting haunting throughout. Nothing feels as scarier as the first one was.
Settings – The film takes us back to Derry, we do get flashbacks with other moments that make sense and return to the old places where the scares happen.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant in places, though it does feel certain CGI moments just don’t work.
Scene of the Movie – Richie’s memory.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – James McAvoy’s accent.
Final Thoughts – This is a bogged down horror that just is way too long to get the best out of the scares, just like the mini series, it fizzles out.
Overall: Disappointing sequel.
Performances – Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy are the two biggest names in the film, they are both fine, because nobody is a true main character, the two could do more and McAvoy is difficult to watch because his choice of accent reminds me about the 10-year-old he plays in Split. Bill Hader and James Ransone are the stars of the returning characters, they still have great chemistry. Isaiah Mustafa and Jay Ryan are both solid enough, though the characters seem to have swapped around.
Story – The story is the second part of the massive book, it follows the adult versions of the losers club that must return to fight Pennywise once again. This is a very long story, it is just under 3 hours long, which does feel like it drags along at times, once problem comes with more flashbacks with hauntings, there is no peril here, because we know the adult versions live. One of the strengths in the film is the idea of being reunited after years away with friends, it does feel natural and just how you would imagine it being. One of the issues I found in the first film was that Ben was the one that spent time learning the history of the town, while Mike did barely anything, it confused me because I always remembered it being Mike that understood the history, here it is Mike and Ben doesn’t seem to care anymore, add in the weird love triangle and you will feel like we have more that didn’t need to be here too.
Horror – The horror side of the film follows the hauntings that both the kids and adults go through, it is more just separate characters getting haunting throughout. Nothing feels as scarier as the first one was.
Settings – The film takes us back to Derry, we do get flashbacks with other moments that make sense and return to the old places where the scares happen.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant in places, though it does feel certain CGI moments just don’t work.
Scene of the Movie – Richie’s memory.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – James McAvoy’s accent.
Final Thoughts – This is a bogged down horror that just is way too long to get the best out of the scares, just like the mini series, it fizzles out.
Overall: Disappointing sequel.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Poison Study (Study, #1) in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Chronicles of Ixia merits closer study
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review is for the entire Chronicles of Ixia series.
The first trilogy, comprised of Poison Study, Fire Study, and Magic Study, follows Yelena Zaltana. The second series, also called the Glass series, follows her friend Opal Cowan in Storm Glass, Sea Glass, and Spy Glass. The final trilogy, Shadow Study, Night Study, and Dawn Study, is where things get a bit odd. Maria V. Snyder had thrown in a few short stories/novellas throughout from different characters’ points of view. Perhaps she got bored of just sticking to one POV, or maybe fans wanted more from the other characters, so the third trilogy is from Yelena’s POV in first person and the POV’s of multiple characters (mainly Valek, Leif, and Janco, with a few others popping in from time to time) in third person.
I’m not sure which editor thought it would be a good idea to have POV switch from first person to third person in the same novel, but—yikes—is it jarring. Even with the wonky POV stuff in the third trilogy, these books are amazing and absolutely worth your time to read. Snyder’s world-building is compelling, detailed, and original. The books take place mostly between two pre-industrial countries: Ixia and Sitia. Ixia is a post-revolution country ruled by Commander Ambrose. His personal body guard and assassin is Valek. In the first novel Yelena is in prison for murder and is offered the choice to be the Commander’s food taster in exchange for her life. She agrees, and throughout the first book she and Valek begin to fall in love.
Ixia reminded me a lot of Communist Russia or China. In its attempts to throw away the corrupt government and society that came before, it has also thrown out all culture in the process. The country has been re-divided into districts with numbers instead of names, everyone is forced to wear a uniform, all art and extravagance has been destroyed, people have to have passes to travel between districts, and magic is forbidden. Anyone born with it is killed (or so the reader is led to believe). But Maria V. Snyder does a wonderful job of showing the good with the bad in this totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone has a job and nobody goes hungry, women are now equal to men, and violence and sexual assault are intolerable. This is why Yelena ends up in prison in the first place: she murdered the man that raped her. Now, this is probably my first major gripe with the series. We learn that Commander Ambrose loathes sexual assault and will execute anyone found guilty of it, but apparently killing a rapist in self-defense is also an executable offense. And all of that being said, Ambrose still has his own personal assassin. It all feels a bit contradictory, but again, that’s what I like about this series: it does an excellent job of peeling back the layers of her fictional societies and pointing out that governments and people in power tend to be hypocritical.
Now, the series name (or rather one of them) is Chronicles of Ixia, but honestly, it should have been called Chronicles of Sitia, because that is where most of the story takes place and is by far the more interesting and vibrant country. Sitia is part jungle, part desert, and full of magic. The peoples are divided into multiple clans or tribes that are all unique and compelling. In the second book, Yelena flees to Sitia after the Commander learns she has magic, and there she finds the family she was kidnapped from as a small child. They are part of the Zaltana clan, a group of people that live high in the trees in the jungle. Whenever I read about them, I would have to remind myself that they were not wood elves or dryads, because while there is magic in these books, there are no fantastical creatures: all characters are human or animal.
Another fascinating tribe is the Sandseeds, a group of nomads in the desert known for two major things: breeding super smart horses and having Storyweavers. The Storyweavers are people who have the magical ability to see the future and guide others, but who have to do it really cryptically because reasons (I appreciate that this gets pointed out by an annoyed Yelena multiple times). And of course, the Sandseed horses are fantastic; they choose their rider and able to mentally communicate with magical people. They even have their own horse names for people that they like.
Besides the different clans throughout Sitia, there is also the capitol, the Citadel, which is home to the magic school and the Sitian Council. While very different from Ixia, Sitia is by no means perfect. Its Council epitomizes everything annoying and dysfunctional about a bureaucracy. While the council members are elected and come from every clan in Sitia, they are at best useless and at worst actively impede the main characters.
The magic school is interesting, though the story doesn’t actually spend much time there. I like how magic was done in this series: it usually runs in families, most people with it have control over one or two things (ie. fire, mind-control, telepathy, etc.), but those who have the ability to master more can become Master Magicians after enduring a daunting trial. Magic is bound in people’s blood, so blood magic is a thing and is obviously bad, and magic (and a person’s soul) can be stolen using an intricate and gruesome blood ritual that involves prolonged torture, rape, and then murder.
The power blanket is another interesting concept used in this series. Essentially is resides over the entire world and is the essence of magic, so magicians can pull from it to augment their own magic. However, if they pull too much and lose control, they can flame out, killing themselves and temporarily damaging the blanket in the process. I thought this was a good literary tool to prevent magical characters from being too OP (at least most of the time).
I especially like the romantic relationships in this series. Valek and Yelena are of course the main couple. In the first book they fall in love, in the second book they get separated, and throughout the series they regularly cross paths and save one another. Yelena and Valek are heartmates, and as the series progresses they both have to mature and learn how to trust one another. My biggest complaint about the romance is that all sex scenes are just fade to black, which I personally find a bit boring.
The other major romantic relationship is between Opal and Devlen. This one was a bit awkward. Opal actually goes through a couple of guys first: a stormdancer named Kade and another glassmaker named Ulrick. And I really liked that the author included this. Many people have multiple partners before finding their soulmate, and a woman who does is not a slut. Her relationship with Devlen, however . . . Well, she’s a more forgiving person than me.
You see, it turns out that Devlen is the man who kidnapped Opal a few years earlier and tortured her because he was trying to steal her magic. But he didn’t actually enjoy torturing her and never raped her, which I guess makes it better? Well, he manages to switch bodies with Ulrick and, as Ulrick, tricks Opal into dating him, then, when he’s discovered, kidnaps and tortures her (again) to gain more power. But then she steals his magic, he spends some time in prison, and the combination of the two miraculously turn him into a good guy, claiming that magic is what made him evil in the first place.
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t completely buy his redemption arc even at the end of the third book in the Glass series, but by the ninth book they’re still together and he’s on the good guys’ side, so I guess it was real. And I have definitely watched/read much worse evil asshole to boyfriend stories. At least Devlen genuinely feels guilty for the horrible things he did in the past and attempts to make up for them, and in her defense, Opal has to do a lot of soul-searching before she can find it in her to forgive and trust him, and even more before she can develop romantic feelings for him (that aren’t based on deception, anyway). Also, Ulrick becomes a huge jerk because of his newfound magical abilities, tries to kill Opal, and later gets assassinated by Valek. I appreciate what Maria V. Snyder is trying to do here, which is to teach through her storytelling how good people can become evil, and evil people can redeem themselves and be good. Their romance was uncomfortable to read, but it was supposed to be uncomfortable, because that’s how all parties involved felt.
Now, let’s talk about Commander Ambrose. Towards the end of the first book, Yelena discovers that Ambrose is a female to male trans person. This is revealed to be why Ambrose hates magicians so much: he is afraid that one of them will read his mind and then reveal his secret (which is how Yelena discovers it). After I read the first book, I was really pleased that Snyder did such a good job of depicting a trans person, as that’s really only a small part of his character, and those who know (mainly Valek and Yelena) don’t make a big deal out of it.
And then . . . I really wish that the author would have just left the issue of the Commander being trans alone. Yelena discovers it in the first book, she keeps it to herself because it’s nobody else’s business, the end. But by creating this weird intricate background to explain why Ambrose is trans, Snyder just kind of shoots herself in the foot.
Throughout the rest of the series, I kept hoping for some other LGBTQ+ characters to show up to redeem the blunder with Ambrose. I actually believed that Ari and Janco were a gay couple for the longest time, what with their banter and often being referred to as partners. However, if this was the author’s intention, it was never really explicitly stated, and the partner thing just seems to refer to them being partners in combat and nothing else.
The first trilogy, comprised of Poison Study, Fire Study, and Magic Study, follows Yelena Zaltana. The second series, also called the Glass series, follows her friend Opal Cowan in Storm Glass, Sea Glass, and Spy Glass. The final trilogy, Shadow Study, Night Study, and Dawn Study, is where things get a bit odd. Maria V. Snyder had thrown in a few short stories/novellas throughout from different characters’ points of view. Perhaps she got bored of just sticking to one POV, or maybe fans wanted more from the other characters, so the third trilogy is from Yelena’s POV in first person and the POV’s of multiple characters (mainly Valek, Leif, and Janco, with a few others popping in from time to time) in third person.
I’m not sure which editor thought it would be a good idea to have POV switch from first person to third person in the same novel, but—yikes—is it jarring. Even with the wonky POV stuff in the third trilogy, these books are amazing and absolutely worth your time to read. Snyder’s world-building is compelling, detailed, and original. The books take place mostly between two pre-industrial countries: Ixia and Sitia. Ixia is a post-revolution country ruled by Commander Ambrose. His personal body guard and assassin is Valek. In the first novel Yelena is in prison for murder and is offered the choice to be the Commander’s food taster in exchange for her life. She agrees, and throughout the first book she and Valek begin to fall in love.
Ixia reminded me a lot of Communist Russia or China. In its attempts to throw away the corrupt government and society that came before, it has also thrown out all culture in the process. The country has been re-divided into districts with numbers instead of names, everyone is forced to wear a uniform, all art and extravagance has been destroyed, people have to have passes to travel between districts, and magic is forbidden. Anyone born with it is killed (or so the reader is led to believe). But Maria V. Snyder does a wonderful job of showing the good with the bad in this totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone has a job and nobody goes hungry, women are now equal to men, and violence and sexual assault are intolerable. This is why Yelena ends up in prison in the first place: she murdered the man that raped her. Now, this is probably my first major gripe with the series. We learn that Commander Ambrose loathes sexual assault and will execute anyone found guilty of it, but apparently killing a rapist in self-defense is also an executable offense. And all of that being said, Ambrose still has his own personal assassin. It all feels a bit contradictory, but again, that’s what I like about this series: it does an excellent job of peeling back the layers of her fictional societies and pointing out that governments and people in power tend to be hypocritical.
Now, the series name (or rather one of them) is Chronicles of Ixia, but honestly, it should have been called Chronicles of Sitia, because that is where most of the story takes place and is by far the more interesting and vibrant country. Sitia is part jungle, part desert, and full of magic. The peoples are divided into multiple clans or tribes that are all unique and compelling. In the second book, Yelena flees to Sitia after the Commander learns she has magic, and there she finds the family she was kidnapped from as a small child. They are part of the Zaltana clan, a group of people that live high in the trees in the jungle. Whenever I read about them, I would have to remind myself that they were not wood elves or dryads, because while there is magic in these books, there are no fantastical creatures: all characters are human or animal.
Another fascinating tribe is the Sandseeds, a group of nomads in the desert known for two major things: breeding super smart horses and having Storyweavers. The Storyweavers are people who have the magical ability to see the future and guide others, but who have to do it really cryptically because reasons (I appreciate that this gets pointed out by an annoyed Yelena multiple times). And of course, the Sandseed horses are fantastic; they choose their rider and able to mentally communicate with magical people. They even have their own horse names for people that they like.
Besides the different clans throughout Sitia, there is also the capitol, the Citadel, which is home to the magic school and the Sitian Council. While very different from Ixia, Sitia is by no means perfect. Its Council epitomizes everything annoying and dysfunctional about a bureaucracy. While the council members are elected and come from every clan in Sitia, they are at best useless and at worst actively impede the main characters.
The magic school is interesting, though the story doesn’t actually spend much time there. I like how magic was done in this series: it usually runs in families, most people with it have control over one or two things (ie. fire, mind-control, telepathy, etc.), but those who have the ability to master more can become Master Magicians after enduring a daunting trial. Magic is bound in people’s blood, so blood magic is a thing and is obviously bad, and magic (and a person’s soul) can be stolen using an intricate and gruesome blood ritual that involves prolonged torture, rape, and then murder.
The power blanket is another interesting concept used in this series. Essentially is resides over the entire world and is the essence of magic, so magicians can pull from it to augment their own magic. However, if they pull too much and lose control, they can flame out, killing themselves and temporarily damaging the blanket in the process. I thought this was a good literary tool to prevent magical characters from being too OP (at least most of the time).
I especially like the romantic relationships in this series. Valek and Yelena are of course the main couple. In the first book they fall in love, in the second book they get separated, and throughout the series they regularly cross paths and save one another. Yelena and Valek are heartmates, and as the series progresses they both have to mature and learn how to trust one another. My biggest complaint about the romance is that all sex scenes are just fade to black, which I personally find a bit boring.
The other major romantic relationship is between Opal and Devlen. This one was a bit awkward. Opal actually goes through a couple of guys first: a stormdancer named Kade and another glassmaker named Ulrick. And I really liked that the author included this. Many people have multiple partners before finding their soulmate, and a woman who does is not a slut. Her relationship with Devlen, however . . . Well, she’s a more forgiving person than me.
You see, it turns out that Devlen is the man who kidnapped Opal a few years earlier and tortured her because he was trying to steal her magic. But he didn’t actually enjoy torturing her and never raped her, which I guess makes it better? Well, he manages to switch bodies with Ulrick and, as Ulrick, tricks Opal into dating him, then, when he’s discovered, kidnaps and tortures her (again) to gain more power. But then she steals his magic, he spends some time in prison, and the combination of the two miraculously turn him into a good guy, claiming that magic is what made him evil in the first place.
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t completely buy his redemption arc even at the end of the third book in the Glass series, but by the ninth book they’re still together and he’s on the good guys’ side, so I guess it was real. And I have definitely watched/read much worse evil asshole to boyfriend stories. At least Devlen genuinely feels guilty for the horrible things he did in the past and attempts to make up for them, and in her defense, Opal has to do a lot of soul-searching before she can find it in her to forgive and trust him, and even more before she can develop romantic feelings for him (that aren’t based on deception, anyway). Also, Ulrick becomes a huge jerk because of his newfound magical abilities, tries to kill Opal, and later gets assassinated by Valek. I appreciate what Maria V. Snyder is trying to do here, which is to teach through her storytelling how good people can become evil, and evil people can redeem themselves and be good. Their romance was uncomfortable to read, but it was supposed to be uncomfortable, because that’s how all parties involved felt.
Now, let’s talk about Commander Ambrose. Towards the end of the first book, Yelena discovers that Ambrose is a female to male trans person. This is revealed to be why Ambrose hates magicians so much: he is afraid that one of them will read his mind and then reveal his secret (which is how Yelena discovers it). After I read the first book, I was really pleased that Snyder did such a good job of depicting a trans person, as that’s really only a small part of his character, and those who know (mainly Valek and Yelena) don’t make a big deal out of it.
And then . . . I really wish that the author would have just left the issue of the Commander being trans alone. Yelena discovers it in the first book, she keeps it to herself because it’s nobody else’s business, the end. But by creating this weird intricate background to explain why Ambrose is trans, Snyder just kind of shoots herself in the foot.
Throughout the rest of the series, I kept hoping for some other LGBTQ+ characters to show up to redeem the blunder with Ambrose. I actually believed that Ari and Janco were a gay couple for the longest time, what with their banter and often being referred to as partners. However, if this was the author’s intention, it was never really explicitly stated, and the partner thing just seems to refer to them being partners in combat and nothing else.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.