Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Becky and her brother Cal hear a cry for help coming from a field of tall grass they go in to help. It soon becomes apparent that things are not what they seem in the tall grass.
In The Tall Grass is a Netflix film based on a novella written by Stephen King & Joe Hill. The film is a horror/suspense/thriller with a main cast only six people and only seven actors credited. The six main characters all become trapped in the grass and, like any good thriller it soon becomes apparent that at least one of them cannot be trusted as they get picked off one by one. However, Stephen King had a hand it writing this so you know it’s not going to be a normal film, there are no monsters in this, no killer Clowns and, surprisingly, no scarecrows although I guess that would have been too obvious for anything written by Mr King. There is a dog. The strangeness comes from the way the film plays with time, it soon becomes apparent that something is playing with time and space which leads to some interesting time loops.
In the Tall Grass is an interesting film which does a lot with a very small cast and a field and isn’t a mega long film like some of the other King films. If you can get your head around time loops, then I think it’s well worth a watch.
In The Tall Grass is a Netflix film based on a novella written by Stephen King & Joe Hill. The film is a horror/suspense/thriller with a main cast only six people and only seven actors credited. The six main characters all become trapped in the grass and, like any good thriller it soon becomes apparent that at least one of them cannot be trusted as they get picked off one by one. However, Stephen King had a hand it writing this so you know it’s not going to be a normal film, there are no monsters in this, no killer Clowns and, surprisingly, no scarecrows although I guess that would have been too obvious for anything written by Mr King. There is a dog. The strangeness comes from the way the film plays with time, it soon becomes apparent that something is playing with time and space which leads to some interesting time loops.
In the Tall Grass is an interesting film which does a lot with a very small cast and a field and isn’t a mega long film like some of the other King films. If you can get your head around time loops, then I think it’s well worth a watch.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Creepshow Animated Special (2020) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
This Halloween Special of the Creepshow Shudder series is a nice pitstop whilst we patiently wait for the second season of its main run.
It consists of two 20-ish minute shorts based on Survivor Type by Stephen King, and Twittering from the Circus of the Dead, by King's son Joe Hill.
The animation used is not much more than a motion comic, but it still manages to be quite striking, and gets the job done. I certainly managed to stay engaged in it.
The stories are exactly the type of material that one would come to expect from Creepshow. Short, sharp, to the point, usually with some sort of underlying message. Like Aesop's Fables but with more entrails.
Survivor Type was my favourite of the two, and focuses on one man's descent into madness when he's washed up on a desert island. Kiefer Sutherland lends his voice talents to this tale, and makes it sound like a proper campfire horror story. It's pretty grim in all honesty, but it's just the right kind of grim for a Halloween Special.
Twittering is the sillier of the two, focusing on a young girl Tweeting her experience of a family getaway. They end up at a circus which proves to be more deadly than originally thought. This one was a little more difficult to get on board with at the beginning. It starts off with a typical "social media is bad" kind of vibe, but when the horror starts, it flips nicely, and ends on an entertaining, and quite horrific note. It's all good stuff!
I've really taken to the Creepshow series, and although this special isn't quite up there with the same level of quality, it's still a fun 45 minute horror trip that's worth a visit.
It consists of two 20-ish minute shorts based on Survivor Type by Stephen King, and Twittering from the Circus of the Dead, by King's son Joe Hill.
The animation used is not much more than a motion comic, but it still manages to be quite striking, and gets the job done. I certainly managed to stay engaged in it.
The stories are exactly the type of material that one would come to expect from Creepshow. Short, sharp, to the point, usually with some sort of underlying message. Like Aesop's Fables but with more entrails.
Survivor Type was my favourite of the two, and focuses on one man's descent into madness when he's washed up on a desert island. Kiefer Sutherland lends his voice talents to this tale, and makes it sound like a proper campfire horror story. It's pretty grim in all honesty, but it's just the right kind of grim for a Halloween Special.
Twittering is the sillier of the two, focusing on a young girl Tweeting her experience of a family getaway. They end up at a circus which proves to be more deadly than originally thought. This one was a little more difficult to get on board with at the beginning. It starts off with a typical "social media is bad" kind of vibe, but when the horror starts, it flips nicely, and ends on an entertaining, and quite horrific note. It's all good stuff!
I've really taken to the Creepshow series, and although this special isn't quite up there with the same level of quality, it's still a fun 45 minute horror trip that's worth a visit.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
LIKE A FINE WINE - gets better with age
I have to admit, when I first watched GOODFELLAS 30 years ago, I thought it was "good" but not "great".
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Karla Bergado (17 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
In the Tall Grass Review: Is the Stephen King horror worth a watch? (Spoilers ahead)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix has really been stepping up their game with the number of horror shows being released this year.
What makes it better is the addition of a film adaptation of a Stephen King novella to satiate
fanatics’ hunger.
Except the question lies in whether I felt full watching this movie.
The story begins with a brother and sister duo on a long journey to San Diego. Sweltering heat and pregnancy do not mix well, alongside the long-winding roads of America until they stop by a field of tall grass. What can go wrong by stopping in the middle of nowhere that’s giving out a Children of the Corn vibe?
The siblings find themselves going through the tall grass after hearing cries from a very distressed child, only to find themselves stuck in a never-ending cycle where there is seemingly no way out and only a rock statue that apparently lets you see things you will never imagine of seeing.
The concept had a potential to give viewers something more and unexpected. But that’s the thing.
It didn’t.
The first half of the movie set the scene of being trapped in a maze of grass, but then the second
half was pretty much the same, with only a couple of weird occult-like elements thrown in to fuel the dying flame. Not only this, but the viewer is left to piece the puzzles together, only to find out that they don’t match. You are left to question the purpose of the rock, the baby and Patrick Wilson’s seemingly possessed character.
If you enjoy watching a slow paced, psychological horror movie and the feeling of being confused, then you can go check this film out.
There is something captivating about this adaptation that keeps you hooked until the end but bear in mind, it requires you to have an open mind and low expectations.
Needless to say, you might as well go and have read of the book, which was also co-written by Joe Hill,the king of horror’s son.
What makes it better is the addition of a film adaptation of a Stephen King novella to satiate
fanatics’ hunger.
Except the question lies in whether I felt full watching this movie.
The story begins with a brother and sister duo on a long journey to San Diego. Sweltering heat and pregnancy do not mix well, alongside the long-winding roads of America until they stop by a field of tall grass. What can go wrong by stopping in the middle of nowhere that’s giving out a Children of the Corn vibe?
The siblings find themselves going through the tall grass after hearing cries from a very distressed child, only to find themselves stuck in a never-ending cycle where there is seemingly no way out and only a rock statue that apparently lets you see things you will never imagine of seeing.
The concept had a potential to give viewers something more and unexpected. But that’s the thing.
It didn’t.
The first half of the movie set the scene of being trapped in a maze of grass, but then the second
half was pretty much the same, with only a couple of weird occult-like elements thrown in to fuel the dying flame. Not only this, but the viewer is left to piece the puzzles together, only to find out that they don’t match. You are left to question the purpose of the rock, the baby and Patrick Wilson’s seemingly possessed character.
If you enjoy watching a slow paced, psychological horror movie and the feeling of being confused, then you can go check this film out.
There is something captivating about this adaptation that keeps you hooked until the end but bear in mind, it requires you to have an open mind and low expectations.
Needless to say, you might as well go and have read of the book, which was also co-written by Joe Hill,the king of horror’s son.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated NOS4A2 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i>I read this novel as my BookBum Club book for January! Check out <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/297482-the-bookbum-club">The BookBum Club on Goodreads!</a></i>
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.
JT (287 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
What did I just watch? If someone could enlighten me I would be most grateful. Netflix doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to original films and I have yet to see one that I was genuinely impressed with. Given all the money that Netflix has, you would have thought they might be able to deliver something worth watching.
For Netflix’s latest effort, In The Tall Grass, the film is based on the 2012 novella by Stephen King and son Joe Hill. King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
Becky (Laysla De Oliveira) and Cal Demuth (Avery Whitted) are making the long trip to San Diego where Becky is planning to give up her baby. Stopping outside an abandoned church they hear a child crying for help from inside a field of tall grass. Not wanting to drive off the pair investigate and become separated and lost in the grass maze. Director Vincenzo Natali is no stranger to maze-like scenarios having helmed The Cube, in which six people are involuntarily placed in an endless maze of deadly traps.
King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
With Becky and Cal in danger of being consumed by the grass, they encounter the family of the missing boy they were searching for. The Dad, Ross (Patrick Wilson) discovers Becky and promises her safe passage out of the labyrinth. Cal in the meantime has met the young boy, Tobin (Will Buie Jr.), who makes a few sinister statements. A huge rock in the middle of the field that can turn people insane as well as bend time expands the story’s supernatural element. This becomes apparent when Becky’s boyfriend shows up months after she failed to return home and becomes a focal point of the story.
The cast, except for Patrick Wilson who plays the psycho role to great effect, are forgettable. There is a scattering of creepy moments but it’s not enough to carry the film any further. Natali had to make a few changes that were different from the novella to pack it into a feature-length film and this is probably where it falls down.
For Netflix’s latest effort, In The Tall Grass, the film is based on the 2012 novella by Stephen King and son Joe Hill. King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
Becky (Laysla De Oliveira) and Cal Demuth (Avery Whitted) are making the long trip to San Diego where Becky is planning to give up her baby. Stopping outside an abandoned church they hear a child crying for help from inside a field of tall grass. Not wanting to drive off the pair investigate and become separated and lost in the grass maze. Director Vincenzo Natali is no stranger to maze-like scenarios having helmed The Cube, in which six people are involuntarily placed in an endless maze of deadly traps.
King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
With Becky and Cal in danger of being consumed by the grass, they encounter the family of the missing boy they were searching for. The Dad, Ross (Patrick Wilson) discovers Becky and promises her safe passage out of the labyrinth. Cal in the meantime has met the young boy, Tobin (Will Buie Jr.), who makes a few sinister statements. A huge rock in the middle of the field that can turn people insane as well as bend time expands the story’s supernatural element. This becomes apparent when Becky’s boyfriend shows up months after she failed to return home and becomes a focal point of the story.
The cast, except for Patrick Wilson who plays the psycho role to great effect, are forgettable. There is a scattering of creepy moments but it’s not enough to carry the film any further. Natali had to make a few changes that were different from the novella to pack it into a feature-length film and this is probably where it falls down.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jul 19, 2022
Tense and Suspenseful
Part STRANGER THINGS and Part IT, the new Blumhouse film, THE BLACK PHONE, is a surprisingly effective horror/thriller that is reminiscent of the better Stephen King stories - and that just might be because the short story for which this film is based on is written by Joe Hill - Stephen King’s son.
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Superhero Epic With Emotional Family Drama And Gravity-Defying Martial Arts
In the past, Xu Wenwu (Tony Leung), Shang-Chi's father, used the Ten Rings, mystical weapons granting him immortality and power, to amass an army of warriors and topple kingdoms and governments alike. In the present Shang-Chi (Simu Liu) is just a regular guy working a dead end job as a valet with his best friend Katy (Awkwafina) and enjoying life. When he and Katy are attacked by the mysterious Ten Rings Organization, Shang-Chi must confront the past of his former life. A life he thought he left behind.
This movie was really great! I'm so glad I went to go watch it in theaters and on the first day before anybody spoiled anything for me. I hate people who do that. Anyways, this movie was an excellent addition to the MCU and I like the way it went about being it's own thing. It felt like they didn't have to try and adhere to being part of a shared universe and making things fit but at the same time there were plenty of Easter eggs and surprises sprinkled throughout. The film also managed to check a lot of boxes without feeling like they were forced. It had drama, really great action, killer fight scenes, and some comedy mixed in there. The movie felt a lot like the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, especially in how it balanced the seriousness and lightness throughout the film. I liked the chemistry between the characters and thought the casting was perfect. The bus scene was one of my favorite parts of the movie and all the action that went on. If I had to say that there was a biggest flaw in the film it would probably be that they didn't really go too far into some of the lore involved but ultimately that didn't detract from it enough to be something major.
I liked the way the director chose to portray the events in the story and how it was a pretty cohesive plot and not all over the place. The pacing was done well and there was good use of flashbacks in certain scenes to move the plot. I felt like it was done well without turning into "info dumping" with character dialogue. The cinematography was great and seemed naturalistic and heightened. They definitely took advantage of filming on location in San Francisco with some scenes filmed in famous places such as Russian Hill, Noe Valley, Nob Hill and Fisherman's Wharf. The fight choreography in the movie is phenomenal. It's probably the best that there has ever been in a Marvel film and it shows. They got Brad Allen who had worked with Jackie Chan before, as the supervising stunt coordinator and he brought that physical comedy to the scenes where setups and stakes keep rising as do the payoffs. The tone of the movie was light but definitely had it's moments were it got darker however it never left it's core of being about family. The music was more contemporary and modern but with some musical score in the scenes where it fit really well but there was nothing that really stuck out as unique or compelling. The acting was pretty good with even Awkwafina showing a little bit of range with some dramatic scenes and not just comedy. Simu Liu was very convincing as Shang-Chi, both versions, the "average Joe" and the warrior. His father played by Tony Leung was also very good in his scenes from the ones showing the past to his interactions with Shang-Chi. You could really feel the tension between them. And of course Michelle Yeoh was just awesome!
The writing was good and dialogue never felt like somebody said something that was out of character or didn't fit right. The plot was never weak or boring. Although you could tell where it was going it had a little bit of mystery to it. The editing was done very proper and there were some good cuts of action scenes particularly the bus scene. I liked the one transition in the beginning from the tale of the past to the alarm clock. The costume designs were something that you usually don't remember in some films but this one had some really iconic ones that stuck out. For example that one masked blue ninja's outfit, as well as the other Ten Rings soldiers looked cool. Razor Fist's arm design was inventive also. There were so many outfits that come out later in the movie that just fit really well too. Although as cool and nice looking as Shang-Chi's costume was, I did think it could have been better. There were plenty of really cool set designs from the Ten Rings lair to a underground fight club in Macau but the one set piece that stole the show to me was this really ornate wooden carving that looked really intricate. You'll know the one when you see it. The special effects were really good and I couldn't really complain too much except that the movie did suffer from one of those things that happened towards the end like in Black Panther where they just used too much in a certain sequence and it looked bad in that particular part. I did have a favorite character in the movie but it'd be spoiling it if I said who it was, so I'll just say that they have exceptional "acting" skills. Anyways I give Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings a 8/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". You need to get out there and check this movie out this Labor Day Weekend.
This movie was really great! I'm so glad I went to go watch it in theaters and on the first day before anybody spoiled anything for me. I hate people who do that. Anyways, this movie was an excellent addition to the MCU and I like the way it went about being it's own thing. It felt like they didn't have to try and adhere to being part of a shared universe and making things fit but at the same time there were plenty of Easter eggs and surprises sprinkled throughout. The film also managed to check a lot of boxes without feeling like they were forced. It had drama, really great action, killer fight scenes, and some comedy mixed in there. The movie felt a lot like the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, especially in how it balanced the seriousness and lightness throughout the film. I liked the chemistry between the characters and thought the casting was perfect. The bus scene was one of my favorite parts of the movie and all the action that went on. If I had to say that there was a biggest flaw in the film it would probably be that they didn't really go too far into some of the lore involved but ultimately that didn't detract from it enough to be something major.
I liked the way the director chose to portray the events in the story and how it was a pretty cohesive plot and not all over the place. The pacing was done well and there was good use of flashbacks in certain scenes to move the plot. I felt like it was done well without turning into "info dumping" with character dialogue. The cinematography was great and seemed naturalistic and heightened. They definitely took advantage of filming on location in San Francisco with some scenes filmed in famous places such as Russian Hill, Noe Valley, Nob Hill and Fisherman's Wharf. The fight choreography in the movie is phenomenal. It's probably the best that there has ever been in a Marvel film and it shows. They got Brad Allen who had worked with Jackie Chan before, as the supervising stunt coordinator and he brought that physical comedy to the scenes where setups and stakes keep rising as do the payoffs. The tone of the movie was light but definitely had it's moments were it got darker however it never left it's core of being about family. The music was more contemporary and modern but with some musical score in the scenes where it fit really well but there was nothing that really stuck out as unique or compelling. The acting was pretty good with even Awkwafina showing a little bit of range with some dramatic scenes and not just comedy. Simu Liu was very convincing as Shang-Chi, both versions, the "average Joe" and the warrior. His father played by Tony Leung was also very good in his scenes from the ones showing the past to his interactions with Shang-Chi. You could really feel the tension between them. And of course Michelle Yeoh was just awesome!
The writing was good and dialogue never felt like somebody said something that was out of character or didn't fit right. The plot was never weak or boring. Although you could tell where it was going it had a little bit of mystery to it. The editing was done very proper and there were some good cuts of action scenes particularly the bus scene. I liked the one transition in the beginning from the tale of the past to the alarm clock. The costume designs were something that you usually don't remember in some films but this one had some really iconic ones that stuck out. For example that one masked blue ninja's outfit, as well as the other Ten Rings soldiers looked cool. Razor Fist's arm design was inventive also. There were so many outfits that come out later in the movie that just fit really well too. Although as cool and nice looking as Shang-Chi's costume was, I did think it could have been better. There were plenty of really cool set designs from the Ten Rings lair to a underground fight club in Macau but the one set piece that stole the show to me was this really ornate wooden carving that looked really intricate. You'll know the one when you see it. The special effects were really good and I couldn't really complain too much except that the movie did suffer from one of those things that happened towards the end like in Black Panther where they just used too much in a certain sequence and it looked bad in that particular part. I did have a favorite character in the movie but it'd be spoiling it if I said who it was, so I'll just say that they have exceptional "acting" skills. Anyways I give Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings a 8/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". You need to get out there and check this movie out this Labor Day Weekend.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.