Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Jar of Hearts in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Compelling, twisted story
Fourteen years ago, Georgina "Geo" Shaw's best friend, Angela Wong, disappeared without a trace. The girls were only sixteen years old. Now Geo is a successful executive--and it comes to a surprise to everyone (except Geo) when she's arrested at her pharmaceutical firm for her role in Angela's murder. It turns out, fourteen years ago, Geo was involved while her older boyfriend, Calvin James, killed Angela and buried her remains in the woods behind Geo's childhood home. Calvin has gone on to become a serial killer known as the Sweetbay Strangler. But to Geo, he's Calvin, her first love, despite their abusive and turbulent relationship. For all these years, Geo carried the secret of what happened that fateful night with Calvin and Angela. She told no one, not even the girls' best friend, Kaiser Brody, who is now a detective with the Seattle PD and working on Angela and Calvin's cases. Geo is sentenced to prison and all her secrets appear to be out in the open. But are they truly? And what does it mean when more bodies start appearing, killed in the same manner as Angela?
This was just a great thriller. It alternates its viewpoints, with pieces of the novel told from Geo and Kai and changing between the past and the present. The result is completely captivating. I was mesmerized by this compelling and well-executed novel, which draws you in from the start. The characters in this one are excellent; rarely do you get two such strong vivid main characters, but I felt drawn to both Kai and Geo.
The story slowly works its way back to that fateful night. Hillier unravels things so adeptly that I was kept guessing for quite some time, meticulously starting to work out pieces of the plot, feeling quite triumphant when I was proved right. This novel is just so intricately plotted and incredibly creepy at times--it's simply a pleasure to read. It's deep and dark, propelled by its wonderfully written characters. Honestly, I can't rave enough about both the plot and the characters.
Overall, you can't go wrong with this one. It features compelling characters and a twisted, dark story that will keep you reading until the very end. I need to track down more of Ms. Hillier's books and soon! Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was just a great thriller. It alternates its viewpoints, with pieces of the novel told from Geo and Kai and changing between the past and the present. The result is completely captivating. I was mesmerized by this compelling and well-executed novel, which draws you in from the start. The characters in this one are excellent; rarely do you get two such strong vivid main characters, but I felt drawn to both Kai and Geo.
The story slowly works its way back to that fateful night. Hillier unravels things so adeptly that I was kept guessing for quite some time, meticulously starting to work out pieces of the plot, feeling quite triumphant when I was proved right. This novel is just so intricately plotted and incredibly creepy at times--it's simply a pleasure to read. It's deep and dark, propelled by its wonderfully written characters. Honestly, I can't rave enough about both the plot and the characters.
Overall, you can't go wrong with this one. It features compelling characters and a twisted, dark story that will keep you reading until the very end. I need to track down more of Ms. Hillier's books and soon! Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
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.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (1972) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.