Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Equity (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Today’s movie for your consideration is from the same selection of films you’d find ‘The Boiler Room’ with only this one is far more ‘reality based’. A financial thriller depicting the cutthroat and take-no-prisoners world of investment banking and Wall Street. ‘Equity’ is directed by Meera Menon and written by Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, and Amy Fox. The film centers on investment banker, Naomi Bishop who is attempting to put together one of the biggest deals in her life and Wall Street history after her first ‘failure’, while combating rivals in and outside her own company, across gender lines, and a federal investigation focusing on someone she knows intimately … Or so she thinks.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Gotham - Season 1 in TV
Jun 20, 2018
Cast (5 more)
Character development
Characters
Setting
Great Drama
Gripping storyline
Some of the more extreme comic book costumes (2 more)
Some of the characters
Certain plot elements that take away the drama (mostly if you've read or seen what happens next)
Imagine a Gotham without Batman....
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first watched it when it first aired, I was sceptical and yet excited and then I felt let down. Gotham at first was a great cop show but what annoyed me was the fact that all these things that we knew to happen when Batman was around, were happening when Bruce Wayne was still a child and my brain couldn't wrap around the idea let alone get behind it, but at the same time I didn't know what I was expecting. Still I watched the first two seasons because I wanted to see some of my favourite villains and characters brought to life and I love Ben McKenzie as James Gordon!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in the early 1980s, a young boy who found himself without friends and tormented by bullies was about to have an unexpected and life-changing experience. Alone on his birthday, the young boy opens his one gift from his mom and is delighted to find a magic kit and instructional video by reknowned magician Lance Holloway (Alan Arkin). His early attempts at magic gain him a new friend and the two become inseparable through their love and practice of magic.
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Ghostly Tales: Spine-Chilling Stories of the Victorian Age in Books
Jan 20, 2021
Ghost stories (1 more)
Well-written
This collection of tales will transport you to a time when staircases creaked in old manor houses, and a candle could be blown out by a gust of wind, or by a passing ghost. Penned by some of the greatest Victorian novelists and masters of the ghost story genre, these stories come alive alongside exquisitely eerie art in this special illustrated edition.
Since this is a short story collection, I will list the stories with a short synopsis and what I liked and disliked about them.
"Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad" by M.R. James
A professor decides to go on vacation to work on his golf game while doing a little side work in the town's archaeology, but when he digs up an old whistle and blows into it, he instantly regrets what the whistle brings.
Liked: the buildup to the climax was done masterfully, and the superstition that was used as the premise of the story
Disliked: that the ending is never explained
"The Old Nurse's Story" by Elizabeth Gaskell
When a governess and her ward are taken to a haunted house, they found out that everyone has to pay for their misdeeds.
Liked: the perfect example of what Victorian ghost stories were
Disliked: Nothing; I really enjoyed this one
"The Signalman" by Charles Dickens
A railroad signalman tells a co-worker that he is seeing a ghost that warns him of future accidents, but his co-worker can't tell if he's telling the truth or losing his mind.
Liked: an excellent ghost story; I wish it were an entire novel
Disliked: nothing
"The Body-Snatcher" by Robert Louis Stevenson
When a medical student realizes that the 'donated' bodies are murder victims, he's not so sure he can live with the consequences.
Liked: the ending wasn't predictable
Disliked: at the start, there's a little confusion among who is who
" The Captain of the Pole-Star" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
A group of whalers are stuck in the middle of the ocean because of ice burgs, but the ice is the least of their problems when they begin to hear and see supernatural things out on the ice.
Liked: the plot of the story was really good
Disliked: the run-on sentences, some of the accents were hard to decipher, and the ending wasn't explained
"The Phantom Coach" by Amelia B. Edwards
A young man loses his way while on a hunt, but soon finds help with an old man that is convinced the supernatural is real, and when he senses the young man does not, he puts him up against forces from the other side.
Liked: the story never lulled, and the descriptions of the undead were amazing
Disliked: nothing, I thought the story was really good
"The Screaming Skull" by F. Marion Crawford
When the friend of a family finds a skull in the latter's home, he begins to question whether or not the husband murdered his wife.
Liked: I love that this story is actually based off an urban legend
Disliked: the way the author kept breaking away from the story to talk to the audience; it caused the flow of the story to stop
Overall, the Victorian-era authors knew how to write a ghost story. I absolutely loved this collection of short stories. I highly recommend this book to people who love a good 'ol fashioned ghost story (not the gory ones we have today).
Since this is a short story collection, I will list the stories with a short synopsis and what I liked and disliked about them.
"Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad" by M.R. James
A professor decides to go on vacation to work on his golf game while doing a little side work in the town's archaeology, but when he digs up an old whistle and blows into it, he instantly regrets what the whistle brings.
Liked: the buildup to the climax was done masterfully, and the superstition that was used as the premise of the story
Disliked: that the ending is never explained
"The Old Nurse's Story" by Elizabeth Gaskell
When a governess and her ward are taken to a haunted house, they found out that everyone has to pay for their misdeeds.
Liked: the perfect example of what Victorian ghost stories were
Disliked: Nothing; I really enjoyed this one
"The Signalman" by Charles Dickens
A railroad signalman tells a co-worker that he is seeing a ghost that warns him of future accidents, but his co-worker can't tell if he's telling the truth or losing his mind.
Liked: an excellent ghost story; I wish it were an entire novel
Disliked: nothing
"The Body-Snatcher" by Robert Louis Stevenson
When a medical student realizes that the 'donated' bodies are murder victims, he's not so sure he can live with the consequences.
Liked: the ending wasn't predictable
Disliked: at the start, there's a little confusion among who is who
" The Captain of the Pole-Star" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
A group of whalers are stuck in the middle of the ocean because of ice burgs, but the ice is the least of their problems when they begin to hear and see supernatural things out on the ice.
Liked: the plot of the story was really good
Disliked: the run-on sentences, some of the accents were hard to decipher, and the ending wasn't explained
"The Phantom Coach" by Amelia B. Edwards
A young man loses his way while on a hunt, but soon finds help with an old man that is convinced the supernatural is real, and when he senses the young man does not, he puts him up against forces from the other side.
Liked: the story never lulled, and the descriptions of the undead were amazing
Disliked: nothing, I thought the story was really good
"The Screaming Skull" by F. Marion Crawford
When the friend of a family finds a skull in the latter's home, he begins to question whether or not the husband murdered his wife.
Liked: I love that this story is actually based off an urban legend
Disliked: the way the author kept breaking away from the story to talk to the audience; it caused the flow of the story to stop
Overall, the Victorian-era authors knew how to write a ghost story. I absolutely loved this collection of short stories. I highly recommend this book to people who love a good 'ol fashioned ghost story (not the gory ones we have today).