Search
Search results
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Slither (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Mixing elements of The Blob, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Creeps and countless other horror films, the new Horror/Comedy Slither has oozed its way into theaters with a mix that will likely delight hardcore horror fans.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Be Cool (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been ten years since audiences last saw Chili Palmer (John Travolta), a former criminal who uses his criminal experiences to become a successful film producer. The how and why Chili made this transition was documented in the 1995 film Get Shorty.
As the film opens, Chili is discussing his frustrations with the film industry with his associate Tommy (James Woods), at a sidewalk cafe. The conversation is interrupted by a barrage of bullets that leaves Tommy dead and Chili with more questions than answers. It seems that Tommy was taken down by a criminal organization and as such, his record company now finds itself in dire straits as his widow Edie (Uma Thurman), struggles to keep the company afloat.
Since Chili is friends with Edie and wants to move to the music business, he uses this opportunity to introduce a new prodigy named Linda Moon (Christina Milian) to her and prepares to record her.
Things become complicated when Chili discovers that Linda is under contract to some very shady characters, including Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) who, like Chili, has a criminal past and is not above using thugs to eliminate or intimidate those into doing his bidding. His right hand man is the hood obsessed Raji (Vince Vaughn) and his massive yet closeted muscle Elliott (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).
If you are not confused yet, don’t worry as the plot will be come even more complex when record producer Sin LaSalle (Cedric the Entertainer), demands $300,000 in owed money from Tommy, due in under a week to keep his boys from taking out Chili and ruining Edie’s company.
The great thing about Be Cool is that no matter how many characters come and go from the every changing plot, it is always well paced and funny, and does not lose momentum.
The audience, like most of the characters, is forced to figure things out as they happen with the exception being Chili who seems to have things figured out even before he takes the necessary steps to resolve the situation.
The cast seems to be having a great time playing their parts and Travolta and Thurman seem to have a very easy going and natural chemistry, especially when they follow up their Pulp Fiction dance with a spirited number. The film also boasts many cameos and I will refrain from spoiling them here.
The highlight of the film would have to be The Rock as he daringly pokes fun at his tough guy persona and signature raised eyebrow by playing the identity confused Elliott who is more at ease belting out torch songs than he is at bashing heads.
The only real issue with the film was that Thurman’s character did not always have much to do aside from standing around looking pretty and being the supportive love interest in the film.
That being said, if you do not mind a twisting plot, over the top characters, and some goofiness, than Be Cool is just the film for you.
As the film opens, Chili is discussing his frustrations with the film industry with his associate Tommy (James Woods), at a sidewalk cafe. The conversation is interrupted by a barrage of bullets that leaves Tommy dead and Chili with more questions than answers. It seems that Tommy was taken down by a criminal organization and as such, his record company now finds itself in dire straits as his widow Edie (Uma Thurman), struggles to keep the company afloat.
Since Chili is friends with Edie and wants to move to the music business, he uses this opportunity to introduce a new prodigy named Linda Moon (Christina Milian) to her and prepares to record her.
Things become complicated when Chili discovers that Linda is under contract to some very shady characters, including Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) who, like Chili, has a criminal past and is not above using thugs to eliminate or intimidate those into doing his bidding. His right hand man is the hood obsessed Raji (Vince Vaughn) and his massive yet closeted muscle Elliott (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).
If you are not confused yet, don’t worry as the plot will be come even more complex when record producer Sin LaSalle (Cedric the Entertainer), demands $300,000 in owed money from Tommy, due in under a week to keep his boys from taking out Chili and ruining Edie’s company.
The great thing about Be Cool is that no matter how many characters come and go from the every changing plot, it is always well paced and funny, and does not lose momentum.
The audience, like most of the characters, is forced to figure things out as they happen with the exception being Chili who seems to have things figured out even before he takes the necessary steps to resolve the situation.
The cast seems to be having a great time playing their parts and Travolta and Thurman seem to have a very easy going and natural chemistry, especially when they follow up their Pulp Fiction dance with a spirited number. The film also boasts many cameos and I will refrain from spoiling them here.
The highlight of the film would have to be The Rock as he daringly pokes fun at his tough guy persona and signature raised eyebrow by playing the identity confused Elliott who is more at ease belting out torch songs than he is at bashing heads.
The only real issue with the film was that Thurman’s character did not always have much to do aside from standing around looking pretty and being the supportive love interest in the film.
That being said, if you do not mind a twisting plot, over the top characters, and some goofiness, than Be Cool is just the film for you.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Terror by Night: the true story of the brutal texas murder that destroyed a family, restored one man’s faith, and shocked a nation.
by Terry Caffey with James H. Pence
Genre: True Crime, Christian, memoir
Rating: 5
My summary: Terry woke up one night and saw his daughter’s ex-boyfriend standing in front of him with a gun. Charlie shot him several times, killed his wife, then him and his friend brutally killed his two sons. They set the house on fire, thinking everyone was dead. Terry managed to escape by God’s life-preservation alone, and made the long trek through the woods to the neighbor’s house. All Terry wanted was to die and live in Heaven with his family. But he stayed alive through sheer will-power and God’s grace. He made it to the neighbor’s house, identified the killer, then colapsed, hoping never to wake up again.
He woke up.
and He has to live with what happened for the rest of his long life.
Terry suffers from suicidal thoughts and depression, overdoses on his drugs, and can’t sleep at night because of his fear.
But God can take any situation and turn it around… Terry went back to where his house was to have a heart-to-heart with God. Terry found something there that was preserved through weeks of rain and wind, and yet was still readable. It was a page from James Pence’s novel Blind Sight (though he didn’t know it at the time) and the first lines he read were these: “I couldn't understand why You would take my family and leave me to struggle along without them. And I guess I still don’t totally understand that part of it. But I do believe that You’re sovereign; You’re in control.” Terry eventually found out through some hard hunting that the character in the book who was speaking had lost his wife and children. It was as if that book was written about him.
Terry’s life changed drastically. He went into ministry, he got re-married… and he learned what unconditional love, forgiveness, and trusting God really meant.
Review: Terror by Night was an absolutely stunning book in every sense of the word. The awful things that happened to Terry, and how God restored him, are amazing. Terror by Night is like Job all over again. God took everything away from Terry—his family were dead and his house was charcoal. Terry suffered tremendously, but God restored him. God used him to restore other people. And God blessed him and gave back what he had taken away.
This book is a testimony of how God can take anything and turn it around for good, how everything that happens is His will, and how He is the one and only thing we can always trust.
A powerful message, an amazing testimony, a picture of forgiveness, uplifting, encouraging, and brutally beautiful, Terror by Night will stay with you for the rest of your life.
Content: 100% clean
Recommendation: I whole-heartedly recommend Terror by Night to everyone over the age of 14. Terror by Night is extremely emotional, several times I had to stop and put it down. There were also some disturbing images of how the children were killed. It would probably make you cry if you read it in one sitting. However, I still think everyone should read it.
by Terry Caffey with James H. Pence
Genre: True Crime, Christian, memoir
Rating: 5
My summary: Terry woke up one night and saw his daughter’s ex-boyfriend standing in front of him with a gun. Charlie shot him several times, killed his wife, then him and his friend brutally killed his two sons. They set the house on fire, thinking everyone was dead. Terry managed to escape by God’s life-preservation alone, and made the long trek through the woods to the neighbor’s house. All Terry wanted was to die and live in Heaven with his family. But he stayed alive through sheer will-power and God’s grace. He made it to the neighbor’s house, identified the killer, then colapsed, hoping never to wake up again.
He woke up.
and He has to live with what happened for the rest of his long life.
Terry suffers from suicidal thoughts and depression, overdoses on his drugs, and can’t sleep at night because of his fear.
But God can take any situation and turn it around… Terry went back to where his house was to have a heart-to-heart with God. Terry found something there that was preserved through weeks of rain and wind, and yet was still readable. It was a page from James Pence’s novel Blind Sight (though he didn’t know it at the time) and the first lines he read were these: “I couldn't understand why You would take my family and leave me to struggle along without them. And I guess I still don’t totally understand that part of it. But I do believe that You’re sovereign; You’re in control.” Terry eventually found out through some hard hunting that the character in the book who was speaking had lost his wife and children. It was as if that book was written about him.
Terry’s life changed drastically. He went into ministry, he got re-married… and he learned what unconditional love, forgiveness, and trusting God really meant.
Review: Terror by Night was an absolutely stunning book in every sense of the word. The awful things that happened to Terry, and how God restored him, are amazing. Terror by Night is like Job all over again. God took everything away from Terry—his family were dead and his house was charcoal. Terry suffered tremendously, but God restored him. God used him to restore other people. And God blessed him and gave back what he had taken away.
This book is a testimony of how God can take anything and turn it around for good, how everything that happens is His will, and how He is the one and only thing we can always trust.
A powerful message, an amazing testimony, a picture of forgiveness, uplifting, encouraging, and brutally beautiful, Terror by Night will stay with you for the rest of your life.
Content: 100% clean
Recommendation: I whole-heartedly recommend Terror by Night to everyone over the age of 14. Terror by Night is extremely emotional, several times I had to stop and put it down. There were also some disturbing images of how the children were killed. It would probably make you cry if you read it in one sitting. However, I still think everyone should read it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Growing up I wasn't a Sonic gamer but even I was majorly sceptical when they released the first trailer, that wasn't a look that worked for me.
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
What if Clark Kent grew up to be evil? What if, instead of growing up to be this all powerful protector of Earth and humanity, he decided he wanted to take the world, cruelly toying with and destroying humanity in the process? That's the premise behind Brightburn, a superhero horror movie from producer James Gunn, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. Comic books are littered with plenty of 'what if' story-lines and alternate takes on popular superheroes, but up until now probably the most famous onscreen version of an evil Superman we've seen was in Superman III. And even then we only really got a drunk, unshaven, but still family friendly Superman, who felt a bit mischievous and blew out the Olympic torch for a bit of a laugh. Brightburn goes a lot darker, leaning heavily into horror with some wonderful, wince-inducing gory moments. If you're looking for Dark Phoenix levels of dark - moody, crying in the corner, that kind of thing - then you're going to be disappointed.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
JT (287 KP) rated White House Down (2013) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
The White House gets the action treatment once again
For the second time in 2013 the White House was the target of terrorists, as no sooner had Gerard Butler shut the door (or what was left of it) Channing Tatum stepped through to show what he could do. It’s oddly surreal for two films with the same plot to be out the very same year, (and if anyone knows of any others films then please let me know) and with identical scenarios, and outcomes for that matter.
Directed by Roland Emmerich who must have blown up and destroyed more landmarks than we care to remember, has another crack at dismantling the White House. Whereas Olympus was more of an attempt at a serious film, White House Down seemed to opt for a more light-hearted approach, and it was clear that it wasn’t taking itself to seriously.
Tatum plays capitol policeman Cale who, desperate to connect with his daughter, brings her along to the White House for a tour while he interviews for a job on the President’s secret service detail. Failing to make the grade due to a poor disciplinary record and disregard for authority he’s turned away, but as luck would have it is on hand to save the day in McClane-esque fashion.
The problem is its big-budget, overblown on a plot that has been done to death (not just twice in a year) the whole father trying to connect with his son/daughter, while at the same time dealing with his demons and back story is just Hollywood on repeat. Emmerich is a master for the visual, and CGI for that matter as he brings us as close to the chaos as is humanly possible, but in the end, the charge is going to run out and you’re left thinking “yea, give us something we haven’t seen already!”.
The on-screen relationship between Fox’s President Sawyer and Tatum’s head strung cop is pretty good, must be all the time they spent making that god awful Channing All Over Your Tatum music video. So the love between the pair is already there, and it was certainly a hell of a lot better than Gerard Butler and Aaron Eckhart.
The action is big and ballsey and there are one or two neat moments like the car chase over the White House lawn and the Black Hawk descent, but we’ve seen it all before especially from Emmerich, and you can see he prefers to favour action set pieces as opposed to neatly setting up the plot and constructing dialogue. James Woods is on hand for villain duties as the disgruntled head of the President’s secret service and is wanting vengeance for the death of his soldier son. It’s all pretty bog-standard stuff, and the list of mercenaries are forgettable, no real standouts there either.
It certainly not the worst but doesn’t quite pip Olympus for me, it’s Emmerich on autopilot doing what he does best but while it’s entertaining it’s not unique enough to set it apart from other blockbusters.
Directed by Roland Emmerich who must have blown up and destroyed more landmarks than we care to remember, has another crack at dismantling the White House. Whereas Olympus was more of an attempt at a serious film, White House Down seemed to opt for a more light-hearted approach, and it was clear that it wasn’t taking itself to seriously.
Tatum plays capitol policeman Cale who, desperate to connect with his daughter, brings her along to the White House for a tour while he interviews for a job on the President’s secret service detail. Failing to make the grade due to a poor disciplinary record and disregard for authority he’s turned away, but as luck would have it is on hand to save the day in McClane-esque fashion.
The problem is its big-budget, overblown on a plot that has been done to death (not just twice in a year) the whole father trying to connect with his son/daughter, while at the same time dealing with his demons and back story is just Hollywood on repeat. Emmerich is a master for the visual, and CGI for that matter as he brings us as close to the chaos as is humanly possible, but in the end, the charge is going to run out and you’re left thinking “yea, give us something we haven’t seen already!”.
The on-screen relationship between Fox’s President Sawyer and Tatum’s head strung cop is pretty good, must be all the time they spent making that god awful Channing All Over Your Tatum music video. So the love between the pair is already there, and it was certainly a hell of a lot better than Gerard Butler and Aaron Eckhart.
The action is big and ballsey and there are one or two neat moments like the car chase over the White House lawn and the Black Hawk descent, but we’ve seen it all before especially from Emmerich, and you can see he prefers to favour action set pieces as opposed to neatly setting up the plot and constructing dialogue. James Woods is on hand for villain duties as the disgruntled head of the President’s secret service and is wanting vengeance for the death of his soldier son. It’s all pretty bog-standard stuff, and the list of mercenaries are forgettable, no real standouts there either.
It certainly not the worst but doesn’t quite pip Olympus for me, it’s Emmerich on autopilot doing what he does best but while it’s entertaining it’s not unique enough to set it apart from other blockbusters.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Relic (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
I only became aware of Relic back in June. After looking into it a little more, I started to come across the traditional ‘scariest movie of the year’ headlines, which seem to accompany the release of pretty much every movie of this kind before release. I also saw comparisons being made to both Hereditary and The Babadook, and anyone who has ever heard any of my rantings on the subject before will know exactly which opposite ends of the movie rating scale I consider those movies to be on! Thankfully, this feature debut from writer/director Natalie Erika James lands nicely on the same end of the scale as The Babadook.
When Kay (Emily Mortimer) receives word that her elderly mother, Edna (Robyn Nevin) has gone missing, she and daughter Sam (Bella Heathcote) drive out to her rural home to investigate. We’d already been introduced to Edna briefly in the opening scene, where she stood naked with her back to us, in a sequence which had already managed to introduce an overwhelming sense of dread and unease. Something that Relic continues to build upon for much of its 89 minute runtime.
Kay and Sam spend some time in the house, liaising with the police and looking for clues to Edna’s whereabouts while they rummage through her large house. Post-it note reminders are dotted around the house, indicating that Edna is now struggling with dementia. From the simple, helpful kind of reminder, such as “take pills” and “turn off the tap”, to the slightly more sinister “don’t follow it”. There are lots of strange, unexplained noises in the house too, with a black mould growing on some of the walls. All the while, a pulsing, pounding score in the background continues to effectively layer up on that dread and unease I mentioned before. While browsing through some paperwork, Kay finds an old sketch of a cabin in the woods and casually mentions to Sam that it was where her great grandfather died alone, of dementia. Apparently the windows, and other elements of the cabin, were used in the building of the house that they are now in, and despite the fact that Kay is currently suffering from dark and disturbing nightmares involving the cabin and her great grandfather, none of this seems to trigger any alarm bells whatsoever!
When Edna suddenly returns home one morning, with no memory of where she’s been, she has dirt under her fingernails and a large and nasty bruise on her chest, which over time begins to look suspiciously like that black mould that’s forming on the walls. While Sam wants to stay and be near to her grandmother, Kay is more focused in checking out care homes to ship her off to. Edna swings between being perfectly normal, with a sharp memory, to periods of forgetfulness and rage. Some time taken to follow the family interactions over the next few days really helps to deepen the characters’ relationships in our minds, highlighting existing tensions between them. And restricting pretty much all of the movie to the confines of the mysterious house only serves to ramp up the unease, in preparation for the final act.
The description of Relic on IMDb states “a manifestation of dementia consumes the family home”, and you can probably gather as much anyway, just by watching the trailer. Instead of the traditional haunted-house movie that you might expect from the earlier part of the movie, we’re treated to an allegory for the horrors of dementia. The house becomes the star of the movie, seemingly altering itself to induce claustrophobia, confusion and panic in Sam and Kay as they become trapped in its shifting corridors, lowered ceilings and newly sealed doors.
Relic can at times feel a little too metaphor driven, and while I understood the beauty and the meaning behind it’s closing moments, I felt it threw up a lot more questions than it answered. Depending on how much that bothers you may affect your overall enjoyment, but I still found it to be an impressively original movie, which successfully managed to creep me out!
When Kay (Emily Mortimer) receives word that her elderly mother, Edna (Robyn Nevin) has gone missing, she and daughter Sam (Bella Heathcote) drive out to her rural home to investigate. We’d already been introduced to Edna briefly in the opening scene, where she stood naked with her back to us, in a sequence which had already managed to introduce an overwhelming sense of dread and unease. Something that Relic continues to build upon for much of its 89 minute runtime.
Kay and Sam spend some time in the house, liaising with the police and looking for clues to Edna’s whereabouts while they rummage through her large house. Post-it note reminders are dotted around the house, indicating that Edna is now struggling with dementia. From the simple, helpful kind of reminder, such as “take pills” and “turn off the tap”, to the slightly more sinister “don’t follow it”. There are lots of strange, unexplained noises in the house too, with a black mould growing on some of the walls. All the while, a pulsing, pounding score in the background continues to effectively layer up on that dread and unease I mentioned before. While browsing through some paperwork, Kay finds an old sketch of a cabin in the woods and casually mentions to Sam that it was where her great grandfather died alone, of dementia. Apparently the windows, and other elements of the cabin, were used in the building of the house that they are now in, and despite the fact that Kay is currently suffering from dark and disturbing nightmares involving the cabin and her great grandfather, none of this seems to trigger any alarm bells whatsoever!
When Edna suddenly returns home one morning, with no memory of where she’s been, she has dirt under her fingernails and a large and nasty bruise on her chest, which over time begins to look suspiciously like that black mould that’s forming on the walls. While Sam wants to stay and be near to her grandmother, Kay is more focused in checking out care homes to ship her off to. Edna swings between being perfectly normal, with a sharp memory, to periods of forgetfulness and rage. Some time taken to follow the family interactions over the next few days really helps to deepen the characters’ relationships in our minds, highlighting existing tensions between them. And restricting pretty much all of the movie to the confines of the mysterious house only serves to ramp up the unease, in preparation for the final act.
The description of Relic on IMDb states “a manifestation of dementia consumes the family home”, and you can probably gather as much anyway, just by watching the trailer. Instead of the traditional haunted-house movie that you might expect from the earlier part of the movie, we’re treated to an allegory for the horrors of dementia. The house becomes the star of the movie, seemingly altering itself to induce claustrophobia, confusion and panic in Sam and Kay as they become trapped in its shifting corridors, lowered ceilings and newly sealed doors.
Relic can at times feel a little too metaphor driven, and while I understood the beauty and the meaning behind it’s closing moments, I felt it threw up a lot more questions than it answered. Depending on how much that bothers you may affect your overall enjoyment, but I still found it to be an impressively original movie, which successfully managed to creep me out!