Search
Search results
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Next Door in Books
Jun 10, 2021
82 of 250
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together đ
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too đđ
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my atticsâ!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didnât finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasnât catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although itâs a good lesson of donât get involved with swinging neighbours đ
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didnât see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short Iâm throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together đ
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too đđ
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my atticsâ!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didnât finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasnât catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although itâs a good lesson of donât get involved with swinging neighbours đ
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didnât see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short Iâm throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasnât quite made it yet, so you probably havenât heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but thatâs about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on â but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesnât know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which⊠ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isnât really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as âshowing potentialâ. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasnât quite made it yet, so you probably havenât heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but thatâs about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on â but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesnât know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which⊠ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isnât really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as âshowing potentialâ. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal âinvasionâ of British film and television programming. Like the British âmusic invasionâ some 60 years ago we just canât seem to get enough of it. Todayâs film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy âThe Lady In The Vanâ. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, âThe Lady In The Vanâ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennettâs driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
âThe Lady In The Vanâ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennettâs strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into Londonâs Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennettâs driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didnât commit after escaping an institution where sheâd been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept âEveryone Has A Story To Tellâ. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennettâs neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe âthe crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writerâs instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smithâs and Alex Jenningsâs performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the âresponsibilityâ of telling Shepherdâs story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use whatâs around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
Iâm going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ânoâ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely âcarries the filmâ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and thereâs a bit of that in this film. Donât let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, Iâd certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you canât, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic âThe CameraManâ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed Iâd like to say âThanks For Readingâ and weâll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
âThe Lady In The Vanâ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennettâs strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into Londonâs Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennettâs driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didnât commit after escaping an institution where sheâd been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept âEveryone Has A Story To Tellâ. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennettâs neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe âthe crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writerâs instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smithâs and Alex Jenningsâs performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the âresponsibilityâ of telling Shepherdâs story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use whatâs around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
Iâm going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ânoâ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely âcarries the filmâ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and thereâs a bit of that in this film. Donât let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, Iâd certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you canât, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic âThe CameraManâ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed Iâd like to say âThanks For Readingâ and weâll see you at the movies.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Pitching Tents (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
If you have ever taken the time to listen to our Podcast you will have figured out that I am a big fan of Kevin Smith, John Hughes, Cameron Crowe dialogue heavy story driven movies. Throw one of those coming of age end of summer type movies and ill eat them up like a bowl of Shreddies (Other cereals are available I just happen to be eating a bowl as I write this).
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Dannyâs dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyoneâs favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Dannyâs dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyoneâs favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glassâ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someoneâs nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying⊠the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. Iâm not sure
if that was because I didnât like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I donât even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldnât overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didnât turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glassâ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someoneâs nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying⊠the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. Iâm not sure
if that was because I didnât like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I donât even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldnât overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didnât turn out to be my
cup of tea.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because thatâs how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. Itâs because thereâs a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennettâs relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking âOh, letâs just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.â The words are witty and sharp, but itâs mostly said about things we donât care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable whoâs who of Britainâs finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the characterâs name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you donât immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadnât I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isnât the case; I donât know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but Iâm not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, thereâs very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. Itâs a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot couldâve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isnât his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If youâre really hurting to see Bennett at his best, itâd be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policemanâs Ballâs, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking âOh, letâs just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.â The words are witty and sharp, but itâs mostly said about things we donât care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable whoâs who of Britainâs finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the characterâs name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you donât immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadnât I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isnât the case; I donât know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but Iâm not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, thereâs very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. Itâs a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot couldâve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isnât his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If youâre really hurting to see Bennett at his best, itâd be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policemanâs Ballâs, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Masters of Horror: A Horror Anthology in Books
Jun 26, 2020
112 of 200
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where Youâll Find It Jeff Strand- Donât Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! Iâm definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think itâs my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what youâd expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan Iâve also found a few more authors!
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where Youâll Find It Jeff Strand- Donât Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! Iâm definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think itâs my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what youâd expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan Iâve also found a few more authors!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchellâs Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher whoâs life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family⊠Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Whereâs Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his characterâs soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an âeverymanâ that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berryâs performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James DâArcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors holdâs their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishawâs performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher whoâs life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family⊠Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Whereâs Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his characterâs soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an âeverymanâ that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berryâs performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James DâArcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors holdâs their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishawâs performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 âŠ. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright ⊠alright ⊠thatâs your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that itâs entirely untrue but letâs face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to whatâs in store for us this year am I right?
Todayâs film is amongst 2016s âleftoversâ if you will. No that thatâs a bad thing. Example ⊠leftover pizza. I donât know one individual who doesnât like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy âThe Comediansâ. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack âJackieâ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an âinsultâ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackieâs brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his nieceâs wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still âwelcomeâ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackieâs date to his nieceâs wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmonyâs father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackieâs television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancĂ© while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her fatherâs birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmonyâs father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. characterâs. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, heâs going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This couldâve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didnât have the âheartâ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. Itâs not that they didnât try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there âŠ. it just didnât have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I canât give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didnât. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I canât see myself buying the movie.
Alright ⊠alright ⊠thatâs your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that itâs entirely untrue but letâs face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to whatâs in store for us this year am I right?
Todayâs film is amongst 2016s âleftoversâ if you will. No that thatâs a bad thing. Example ⊠leftover pizza. I donât know one individual who doesnât like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy âThe Comediansâ. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack âJackieâ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an âinsultâ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackieâs brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his nieceâs wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still âwelcomeâ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackieâs date to his nieceâs wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmonyâs father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackieâs television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancĂ© while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her fatherâs birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmonyâs father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. characterâs. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, heâs going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This couldâve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didnât have the âheartâ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. Itâs not that they didnât try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there âŠ. it just didnât have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I canât give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didnât. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I canât see myself buying the movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The moment has come for every budding witch and wizard to say goodbye to the cash cow that has been the Harry Potter franchise and what a send-off heâs been given.
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if youâre not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you wonât understand whatâs going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didnât need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion Iâve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasnât let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them arenât given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carterâs fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis â Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book arenât given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes wouldâve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as itâs been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. Itâs a real treat to behold.
Yatesâ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I wonât spoil the scene for you, but itâs an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesnât forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, itâs a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly wonât be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if youâre not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you wonât understand whatâs going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didnât need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion Iâve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasnât let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them arenât given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carterâs fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis â Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book arenât given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes wouldâve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as itâs been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. Itâs a real treat to behold.
Yatesâ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I wonât spoil the scene for you, but itâs an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesnât forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, itâs a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly wonât be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/