Search

Search only in certain items:

The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (1965)
The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (1965)
1965 | Action, Classics, Drama
(0 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"Before Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy there was the bleaker, 1960s John le Carré, who wrote the novel upon which this film is based when the cold war was at its coolest. This meditation on spy-craft by Martin Ritt is Brit-noir at its finest. Richard Burton as the alcoholic Alec Leamas oozes arrogance and desperation in equal measure, and with wonderful performances by Claire Bloom and the always interesting Oskar Werner, this is a spy movie Bergman could have made. An unusual saxophone-driven score of terrific atmosphere—I once chased all over London to find it, returning home to find the album disappointingly did not feature the best cues."

Source
  
The Haunting  (1963)
The Haunting (1963)
1963 | Horror
The Haunted House
The Haunting- is one of the best horror movies of all time. Its scary, spooky, haunting, terrorfying, horrorfying and more.

The Plot: Dr. John Markway, an anthropologist with an interest in psychic phenomena, takes two specially selected women to Hill House, a reportedly haunted mansion. Eleanor (Julie Harris), a lonely, eccentric woman with a supernatural event in her past, and the bold Theodora (Claire Bloom), who has ESP, join John and the mansion's heir, cynical Luke (Russ Tamblyn). They are immediately overwhelmed by strange sounds and events, and Eleanor comes to believe the house is alive and speaking directly to her.

From the great novel- The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson.

In 2010, The Guardian newspaper ranked it as the 13th-best horror film of all time. Director Martin Scorsese has placed The Haunting first on his list of the 11 scariest horror films of all time.

The film was remade in 1999 by director Jan de Bont, starring Liam Neeson, Lili Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson, but that version was heavily panned by critics and audiences. Dont watch that film, but instead watch this masterpiece.

I would highly reccordmend this movie.
  
Hogzilla (2014)
Hogzilla (2014)
2014 | Horror
1
1.0 (1 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Just so there is no confusion, Hogzilla is a massive pile of wank.
However, the episode of The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs (who himself 'stars' in Hogzilla) is thoroughly entertaining, and the only medium available where I could even half recommend giving it a view.
Watching Joe Bob and Darcy tear it apart is pretty damn funny.

The actual film is just balls awful. The dialogue, the acting, the sound mixing - even the poster is shitty.
Above all else though, it's just plain boring. I appreciate that it was made on a tiny budget, but this means that the titular monster's screentime clocks in at around 10-12 seconds (and you don't really see it properly then either). It also means that 98% of the run time is a group of insufferable characters walking aimlessly around a forest, constantly being dicks to each other, and never being funny.
Even their unavoidable deaths are unsatisfying - The limited blood effects look they were done on Microsoft Paint.

I guess seeing Joe Bob aka John Bloom on screen is sort of comforting, but it really doesn't do much to elevate Hogzilla above being a garbage fire of a film.
  
Unlocked (2017)
Unlocked (2017)
2017 |
6
6.0 (2 Ratings)
Movie Rating
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.

Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?

After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.

At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.

Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.

The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.

The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.

Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.

Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.

https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
  
40x40

Sarah (7798 KP) created a post

Jan 18, 2021 (Updated Jan 18, 2021)  
(Posting this separately as it covers as a review for 3 films @The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) , @The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) and @The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) )
Film(s) #11 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Film 11 is actually the three films that make up the Lord of the Rings trilogy: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. Whilst I can entirely understand featuring the trilogy as a whole, especially as they were filmed back to back and follow the same continuing storyline, however as a watcher this is a tad frustrating. The extended editions of these films, which I own of course, come in at a hefty runtime of just under 12 hours and this means a marathon of a film screening. But gripes about the runtime aside, this trilogy is still every bit the epic I remember it being when they were first released nearly 20 years ago.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is based by JRR Tolkien’s book of the same name that follows Frodo (Elijah Wood), a hobbit who must journey to the darkest lands of Mordor to destroy a powerful ring before it falls into the hands of the evil lord Sauron. Throughout Frodo’s journey across Middle Earth, he is accompanied by a 9 strong fellowship: hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd); men Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean); elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). All of whom must also face their own battles in the war to defeat Sauron.

At the time these films were released between 2001 and 2003, we’d never seen filmmaking taken to such extremes and I’d argue that aside from the later Hobbit film trilogy (the less said about those the better), we still haven’t seen anything like it in the decades since. To film these back to back over 15 months with a immense cast, sets and filming locations across New Zealand is no mean feat and watching these back you can really appreciate the sheer amount of work that has gone into these films. The cinematography is stunning and really highlights the beautiful scenery of New Zealand, and the CGI for it’s time was beyond impressive. The motion capture technology used for Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Gollum was incredible and like nothing we’d seen before. All of this paired with Howard Shore’s hugely memorable and iconic score makes for a superb bit of filmmaking.

What makes director Peter Jackson’s take on Lord of the Rings so engaging is the story and the fact that there’s nothing in the main plot that is unnecessary. Jackson had removed all of the erroneous side plots from the book (think Tom Bombadil) yet kept the main thread of the story intact, which effortlessly weaves serious fantasy and war with some rather light hearted and funny moments. While I would normally be an advocate of books over their film counterparts, I happily make an exception for the Lord of the Rings. The films are definitely better than the book. They’re also helped by a stellar cast, from seasoned veterans like Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee (Saruman), to relative newcomers at the time like Viggo Mortensen, who has by far a standout performance, who all do their part to make this trilogy come alive.

This isn’t to say that the trilogy is flawless. Whilst the films look good for their age, some of the special effects haven’t aged quite as well as you’d expect and there are some that are looking decidedly ragged around the edges – Treebeard in Fangorn forest is but one example. The casting of Orlando Bloom was also a questionable one. His acting skills are limited at best and while he is meant to be playing a rather emotionless elf, his performance is very poor compared the rest of the elvish actors. He probably isn’t helped by the fact that Legolas has been given some rather ridiculous and farfetched acrobatics that just look quite silly. And then there’s Éowyn, who is possibly one of the most irritating characters of all, her doe eyed fawning over Aragorn completely overruling the tough, feisty woman she’s trying to be. Finally I’d also question about whether the extended editions are truly necessary, which I appreciate does make me a bit of a hypocrite seen as I own them. They might include scenes we’d never seen in the theatrical releases, but I’d argue that none of these ads particularly much to the overall story.

However despite these flaws, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is undeniably an epic masterclass in filmmaking from Peter Jackson and these are 3 films that you won’t forget in a hurry. It can only be 10/10.
     
TR
The Ridge
John Rector | 2017 | Fiction & Poetry
6
6.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
When I saw John Rector had another novel coming out I was really excited. I read a previous book of his, <i>Ruthless</i>, which I really enjoyed, so I was sure I was going to like this one, but it didn't live up to my expectations.

This book sounds like it's going to be about a creepy neighbourhood, and while it is, it also isn't. Sure, our characters live in a Stepford Wives feeling place, but we actually only meet 2 or 3 extra characters who live in the neighbourhood, so when the synopsis says something about "exposing the community's pretty lies", there didn't feel like there was much of that. It was far more about a woman digging up secrets on an institute that happens to have all its employees living in one area. This isn't particularly a bad thing, it's just something to note. It's not quite as Stepford Wives as you might think!

This book is 90% conversation and 10% description, so if you're the kind of person who likes descriptive, poetic reads, this certainly won't be for you, but for me, all the speech wasn't an issue, it was sometimes what was being said that I had an issue with. Lots of the time I felt conversation was a little bland, stiff and unrealistic. In terms of descriptive writing, about the neighbourhood or a person, there was nothing special to note. There was also a rehashing of several particular phrases that began to grate on me quite soon into the book.

To begin with, I did really like this novel, I found myself rushing through it, intrigued to know what was going on. It was subtle but it was creepy. Towards the middle, my interest began to dip a bit. I had started to guess what was happening, as well as there being a not-so-exciting reveal. Some parts of the story also started to feel amiss, such as the roses bushes outside of Rachel's being described as "in full bloom" after the scene of her hacking away at them... continuity was sometimes a little shady.

What really let this novel down for me was the characters and the immaturity of them all. None of them felt real, so it was difficult picturing them in situations. Particularly our MC, Megan, who was really juvenile and melodramatic. And naive. Oh so very, stupidly, unrealistically naive. It was so easy to become annoyed by her rash decision making and all the different ways she handled situations. What really got me, was her revealing conversation with Mercer about midway through the book. I couldn't wrap my head around how she could turn around and call him "crazy" after everything she had been through. It felt totally off kilter!

I liked and I didn't like this book. I think it could have been so much creepier and mysterious than it was. I felt there was too much time being spent on Megan's thoughts of Chicago and her marriage to fully appreciate the weirdness of the community she lived in. Ultimately, this book was too simple. It all worked out too well and everything slot perfectly into place, which totally isn't my kind of thriller story.

<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>