Search
Search results
John Taylor recommended The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (1965) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Haunting (1963) in Movies
Oct 4, 2019
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.
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.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hogzilla (2014) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
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.
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.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
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/
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/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Ridge in Books
Mar 15, 2018
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>
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>