Search
Search results
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The New Girl in Books
Jan 23, 2022
After experiencing an horrific event whilst at university, Sophie has tried to re-build her life and put her past behind her. She is not happy at home and wants more from her life and when she is offered a job in London that sounds perfect and will give her the new start she is desperate for, she jumps at the chance but what's the saying "If it sounds too good to be true ... it probably is!"
Sophie is, in my opinion, a little naïve and pretty gullible. There were red flags and flashing warning signs everywhere but Sophie didn't seem to see them ... really??? A little implausible given her past, but I found the anticipation of how and when the penny would drop for her was quite engaging.
Full of interesting characters, well written and at a good pace, this is an enjoyable thriller with contemporary themes and whilst it isn't full of violence, blood or gore, there is a palpable sense of unease throughout. Some of the twists were quite obvious (to me anyway) and whilst the ending was satisfactory, the epilogue was disappointing in it's unrealistic outcome.
If you can get past the frustration of wanting to put your hands in the book and shake some sense into Sophie, this is an entertaining read and my thanks must go to Bookouture and NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest, unbiased and unedited review.
Sophie is, in my opinion, a little naïve and pretty gullible. There were red flags and flashing warning signs everywhere but Sophie didn't seem to see them ... really??? A little implausible given her past, but I found the anticipation of how and when the penny would drop for her was quite engaging.
Full of interesting characters, well written and at a good pace, this is an enjoyable thriller with contemporary themes and whilst it isn't full of violence, blood or gore, there is a palpable sense of unease throughout. Some of the twists were quite obvious (to me anyway) and whilst the ending was satisfactory, the epilogue was disappointing in it's unrealistic outcome.
If you can get past the frustration of wanting to put your hands in the book and shake some sense into Sophie, this is an entertaining read and my thanks must go to Bookouture and NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest, unbiased and unedited review.
David McK (3600 KP) rated Aliens (1986) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020 (Updated Mar 16, 2022)
The action (1 more)
Powerloader scene
James Cameron's sequel to Ridley Scott's 'Alien', set 57 years later and turning the 'haunted-house' setup of the original into a full-blown Vietnam war movie metaphor, with the sole survivor of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (a career best Sigourney Weaver) rescued and woken up from hypersleep by The Company, and convinced to return to the planet where she first encountered the Xenomorph, when they suddenly lose contact with the colonists on said planets.
The Extended Edition of the movie adds even more context, with the revelation that Ripley had a daughter who has since died, to the 'found family' at the heart of the narrative - especially between Newt and Ripley herself - while Bill Paxton has the honour(?) of becoming the only actor to be killed by a Predator, an Alien and a Terminator, as one of the (initially) cocksure Colonial Marines trapped behind enemy lines.
Top it off with the iconic final act (Ripley in a Powerloader Vs the Alien Queen) and some eminently quotable lines throughout:
"Game over, man! Game Over!!"
"They mostly come at night, mostly …"
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"
"Get away from her, you b..."
And we have what most surely be one of the best sequels ever. Even, in my opinion, eclipsing the original.
It's just a pity it's all downhill from here ...
The Extended Edition of the movie adds even more context, with the revelation that Ripley had a daughter who has since died, to the 'found family' at the heart of the narrative - especially between Newt and Ripley herself - while Bill Paxton has the honour(?) of becoming the only actor to be killed by a Predator, an Alien and a Terminator, as one of the (initially) cocksure Colonial Marines trapped behind enemy lines.
Top it off with the iconic final act (Ripley in a Powerloader Vs the Alien Queen) and some eminently quotable lines throughout:
"Game over, man! Game Over!!"
"They mostly come at night, mostly …"
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"
"Get away from her, you b..."
And we have what most surely be one of the best sequels ever. Even, in my opinion, eclipsing the original.
It's just a pity it's all downhill from here ...
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/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
How Did We Get So Dark? by Royal Blood
8.0
Rate It
Album Watch
After becoming the biggest breaking British rock band with their self-titled 2014 debut album, Royal...
rock
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
The Inner World
Games
App
The Inner World – A hilarious and critically acclaimed 2D-Point’n’Click Adventure. Robert...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Assassination Nation (2018) in Movies
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Characters aren't interesting, memorable or believable (3 more)
Badly edited
Poor use of music
Trying too hard to be edgy/shocking
Really, really bad
Assassination Nation really, really wants to shock you. At the beginning, it even gives out a warning, listing out all the offensive and shocking things coming up, along with a very quick clip of them all, that's how cool and edgy it thinks it is. It's all parties and social media, the girls are all bitches, the boys are all idiots. And it's all held together with bad editing, loud jarring music and a nonsensical plot. Maybe I'm just too old but I found it more annoying than shocking.
So, I think what they did with this movie is start at the end and then try and work backwards. They had this really cool idea of four schoolgirls, all standing there dressed in red, armed with guns and swords, ready to take on a town of crazy people wearing masks, and then they tried to come up with a way of getting to that point. The answer comes in the form of hacking, exposing everyone's data so that mob mentality ensues.
The hacking begins with some more prominent figures. The local mayor has all his private, kinky photos released and ends up publicly committing suicide. Then the local principal, a kind family man, has all of his messages and photos exposed. He has photos of his 6 year old daughter taking a bath, so he's branded a paedophile, obviously. The next logical step? Form a large crazed mob, demanding his resignation and terrorising his family by smashing his front door down. It's shocking right? Right? No. No, it's all just annoying nonsense.
Ok, so we've got the whole town acting like they're in a Purge movie, now how do we get the girls to start getting involved with guns and stuff. Well, let's have their data exposed too - nudes, details of the married man they've been texting. Then let's get somebody to falsely accuse one of girls of doing all the hacking so that the whole town hates them and is either trying to arrest them or kill them. And then the girls come across a stash of guns and knives laid out on the floor. There you go, job done, that's our movie.
To be fair, at that point the movie does improve in quality, but it's too little too late. There isn't a single interesting or memorable character in the whole thing, nothing to make you care or believe in anything you're seeing. And as I mentioned earlier, the whole thing is a complete mess. Pointless split screen scenes, dull voiceover narration, dramatic music that doesn't match the scene it's in. Character reactions, actions and interactions that are just complete nonsense. Officially one of the worst movies I've seen this year.
So, I think what they did with this movie is start at the end and then try and work backwards. They had this really cool idea of four schoolgirls, all standing there dressed in red, armed with guns and swords, ready to take on a town of crazy people wearing masks, and then they tried to come up with a way of getting to that point. The answer comes in the form of hacking, exposing everyone's data so that mob mentality ensues.
The hacking begins with some more prominent figures. The local mayor has all his private, kinky photos released and ends up publicly committing suicide. Then the local principal, a kind family man, has all of his messages and photos exposed. He has photos of his 6 year old daughter taking a bath, so he's branded a paedophile, obviously. The next logical step? Form a large crazed mob, demanding his resignation and terrorising his family by smashing his front door down. It's shocking right? Right? No. No, it's all just annoying nonsense.
Ok, so we've got the whole town acting like they're in a Purge movie, now how do we get the girls to start getting involved with guns and stuff. Well, let's have their data exposed too - nudes, details of the married man they've been texting. Then let's get somebody to falsely accuse one of girls of doing all the hacking so that the whole town hates them and is either trying to arrest them or kill them. And then the girls come across a stash of guns and knives laid out on the floor. There you go, job done, that's our movie.
To be fair, at that point the movie does improve in quality, but it's too little too late. There isn't a single interesting or memorable character in the whole thing, nothing to make you care or believe in anything you're seeing. And as I mentioned earlier, the whole thing is a complete mess. Pointless split screen scenes, dull voiceover narration, dramatic music that doesn't match the scene it's in. Character reactions, actions and interactions that are just complete nonsense. Officially one of the worst movies I've seen this year.
Joni and Ken: An Untold Love Story
10.0
Rate It
Book
It was not a typical Sunday morning for Joni Eareckson. Sure, she was in her regular place along the...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.