Search
Search results
Debbie (52 KP) rated Storm Runners (Storm Runners, #1) in Books
Feb 23, 2019
Storm Runners
By: Roland Smith
Main Characters: Chase and John Masters
Side Characters: Tomas (employee of John Masters), Nicole (daughter of Marco and school friend), Momma Rossi (mother of Marco), Marco, Rashawn (school friend), Dr. Krupp (school principal),
Richard Krupp (TV anchor and principal's husband), Cindy Stewart (meteorologist), and Mark (cameraman)
Setting: Florida
The book starts out with John getting stroke by lightening as he gathers his tools from the backyard. As it is raining and Chase left them out after working a tree house.
One year later they are both traveling around the states with Tomas. they are helping people rebuild after hurricanes. Chase is never in one school long enough to make friends. His dad does make him carry a to go bag which has emergency supplies.
His dad changed after being stroke by lightening. He has an eternal clock that is extremely actarit. He no longer sleeps more than 4 hours a night. He is also very good at telling where a hurricane will hit.
John is dropping Chase off at a farm where Tomas' Brother works to go to school while they head to Saint Petersburg (Saint Pete). This is where John thinks that Hurricane Emily will hit.
On this farm he meets Marco, Nicole and Momma Rossi. Marco and Momma Rossi are little people and Nicole is normal size. This is no ordinary farm. This is a circus farm. There is a giraffe, loins, a pregnant elephant, monkey and leopard.
Chase goes to school with Nicole. He checks himself in because Dad is on his way to Saint Pete. This is unusual but he does it all the time. Dr. Krupp questions him but goes ahead and gives him a schedule. As the day goes on the weather in his area is getting worse. He realizes his Dad is wrong this time about where the Hurricane will hit. As school ends he try's to tell Dr. Krupp that they would safer at the school instead of on the bus heading home. She doesn't listen and sends them on their way. She wants to get home to her own children.
This is where the adventures begins and where they meet Rashawn another girl from school who lives by the farm.
Meanwhile in Saint Pete. John is waiting with Tomas for Hurricane Emily to hit. He talks with the Cindy and actually films a segment on the news. Richard is actually arguing a little with Cindy about the Hurricane. Cindy doesn't think the Hurricane will hit Saint Pete. As they realize that Hurricane Emily is in fact not going to hit Saint Pete but where Chase is John wants to go back.
He offers to take Cindy and Mark with him to get updated information on the storm. They both agree to go.
What happens to John and his crew? Do Chase, Rashawn and Nicole make it home?
This book leaves off on a cliff hanger, which makes you wonder.
I greatly enjoyed the book and have purchased the next book to read and see what happens.
I recommend that you read this book to your children or for yourself.
By: Roland Smith
Main Characters: Chase and John Masters
Side Characters: Tomas (employee of John Masters), Nicole (daughter of Marco and school friend), Momma Rossi (mother of Marco), Marco, Rashawn (school friend), Dr. Krupp (school principal),
Richard Krupp (TV anchor and principal's husband), Cindy Stewart (meteorologist), and Mark (cameraman)
Setting: Florida
The book starts out with John getting stroke by lightening as he gathers his tools from the backyard. As it is raining and Chase left them out after working a tree house.
One year later they are both traveling around the states with Tomas. they are helping people rebuild after hurricanes. Chase is never in one school long enough to make friends. His dad does make him carry a to go bag which has emergency supplies.
His dad changed after being stroke by lightening. He has an eternal clock that is extremely actarit. He no longer sleeps more than 4 hours a night. He is also very good at telling where a hurricane will hit.
John is dropping Chase off at a farm where Tomas' Brother works to go to school while they head to Saint Petersburg (Saint Pete). This is where John thinks that Hurricane Emily will hit.
On this farm he meets Marco, Nicole and Momma Rossi. Marco and Momma Rossi are little people and Nicole is normal size. This is no ordinary farm. This is a circus farm. There is a giraffe, loins, a pregnant elephant, monkey and leopard.
Chase goes to school with Nicole. He checks himself in because Dad is on his way to Saint Pete. This is unusual but he does it all the time. Dr. Krupp questions him but goes ahead and gives him a schedule. As the day goes on the weather in his area is getting worse. He realizes his Dad is wrong this time about where the Hurricane will hit. As school ends he try's to tell Dr. Krupp that they would safer at the school instead of on the bus heading home. She doesn't listen and sends them on their way. She wants to get home to her own children.
This is where the adventures begins and where they meet Rashawn another girl from school who lives by the farm.
Meanwhile in Saint Pete. John is waiting with Tomas for Hurricane Emily to hit. He talks with the Cindy and actually films a segment on the news. Richard is actually arguing a little with Cindy about the Hurricane. Cindy doesn't think the Hurricane will hit Saint Pete. As they realize that Hurricane Emily is in fact not going to hit Saint Pete but where Chase is John wants to go back.
He offers to take Cindy and Mark with him to get updated information on the storm. They both agree to go.
What happens to John and his crew? Do Chase, Rashawn and Nicole make it home?
This book leaves off on a cliff hanger, which makes you wonder.
I greatly enjoyed the book and have purchased the next book to read and see what happens.
I recommend that you read this book to your children or for yourself.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
Better than expected
Underwater stars Kristen Stewart as an engineer working aboard a deep-sea laboratory, who must fend for her life alongside her crew when an earthquake devastates the station.
I’ll start by admitting that I’ve never been a big fan of Kristen Stewart, with Twilight to thank for this rather negative opinion. However I’ve come to realise she’s actually a decent actress, especially in action packed films, and this really helped me to enjoy Underwater a lot more than I was expecting.
The action in this is virtually nonstop. There’s no lengthy or drawn out introductions, we’re submerged (literally) into the main plot of this film less than 5 minutes in and it continues in this vein throughout. It’s an edge of your seat thrill ride that’s tense and gripping, and there isn’t a dull moment. The horror aspect is rather well done and paired with the unknown and often claustrophobic circumstances the characters find them in and the very good score, it becomes quite a scary and nerve wracking film. The plot is decent and whilst the reveal on the cause of the earthquake isn’t entirely unpredictable, it still proves to be great entertaining.
Sadly despite my gushing, Underwater isn’t perfect. The biggest problem with it is the CGI and special effects. The props and set design themselves look good, but they’re let down when we’re shown these huge CGI underwater scenes that are meant to look impressive but instead look horrendous. I’d be interested to know how this looked on the big screen, but in a home setup it looks decidedly dodgy. And slow motion every time something explodes is cringeworthy.
Underwater also suffers from your typical survival film clichés. The plot itself is very typical of a survival film, and paired with ridiculous and predictable actions by underdeveloped characters, it lets it down. The cast too are also let down by the cliched characters, and even Vincent Cassel and John Gallagher Jnr are given little to work with. The only character that has had any development whatsoever is Stewart’s Nora, who is a decent and fairly likeable protagonist.
I really wish Underwater had a little more money thrown at it. If they had dramatically improved the CGI then I think this would’ve made for a cracking good sci-if/horror. The critical reception for this hasn’t been great, which surprises me as overall this is a very tense, nerve wracking and sometimes scary film that just falls short of being very good.
I’ll start by admitting that I’ve never been a big fan of Kristen Stewart, with Twilight to thank for this rather negative opinion. However I’ve come to realise she’s actually a decent actress, especially in action packed films, and this really helped me to enjoy Underwater a lot more than I was expecting.
The action in this is virtually nonstop. There’s no lengthy or drawn out introductions, we’re submerged (literally) into the main plot of this film less than 5 minutes in and it continues in this vein throughout. It’s an edge of your seat thrill ride that’s tense and gripping, and there isn’t a dull moment. The horror aspect is rather well done and paired with the unknown and often claustrophobic circumstances the characters find them in and the very good score, it becomes quite a scary and nerve wracking film. The plot is decent and whilst the reveal on the cause of the earthquake isn’t entirely unpredictable, it still proves to be great entertaining.
Sadly despite my gushing, Underwater isn’t perfect. The biggest problem with it is the CGI and special effects. The props and set design themselves look good, but they’re let down when we’re shown these huge CGI underwater scenes that are meant to look impressive but instead look horrendous. I’d be interested to know how this looked on the big screen, but in a home setup it looks decidedly dodgy. And slow motion every time something explodes is cringeworthy.
Underwater also suffers from your typical survival film clichés. The plot itself is very typical of a survival film, and paired with ridiculous and predictable actions by underdeveloped characters, it lets it down. The cast too are also let down by the cliched characters, and even Vincent Cassel and John Gallagher Jnr are given little to work with. The only character that has had any development whatsoever is Stewart’s Nora, who is a decent and fairly likeable protagonist.
I really wish Underwater had a little more money thrown at it. If they had dramatically improved the CGI then I think this would’ve made for a cracking good sci-if/horror. The critical reception for this hasn’t been great, which surprises me as overall this is a very tense, nerve wracking and sometimes scary film that just falls short of being very good.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Nov 15, 2018
Master Director working some Masterful Camerawork
For my next deep dive into a film of the "Master of Suspense", Alfred Hitchock, I thought I'd pull out a "one-trick pony" film of his, 1948's ROPE. Based on a stage play, HItchock decided to film this movie as it were a play - keeping the entire film in one location (an apartment) and to film it in (what appears to be) one long take.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Sep 11, 2020
Fair play, Underwater doesn't fuck around - 2 minutes in and all hell starts breaking loose and shit hits the fan pretty relentlessly until the credits roll. It's clear that director William Eubank wants your attention from the beginning - unfortunately it doesn't quite stay like this throughout...
I actually enjoyed Underwater for the most part, it's just that somewhere in the middle, it really starts to drag a bit, and I'm not even quite sure why - there's always something going on but it just lost me a bit.
Fortunately, the up and down middle act is book-ended by a very strong and tense first act, and one hell of a final third - no spoilers here but holy fuck!!!
The ending 'reveal' honestly elevates Underwater to loftier heights.
It also benefits from a good cast. Kristen Stewart has really grown on me in recent years and she's a fantastic lead in this. Always a pleasure to have Jessica Henwick and John Gallagher Jr. onscreen as well.
As per usual, I couldn't really get on with T.J. Miller - there's just something about that dude that always feels a bit too try hard - people liked him in Deadpool and now he's just typecast as the comic relief - Underwater doesn't really need comic relief.
There are some genuinely tense moments here and there, and the Aliens vibes are prominent - it's of course a few tiers under Aliens, but the bottom of the sea feels just as empty and otherworldly as space, and the creature designs are suitably eerie. The low light levels cover up a lot of CGI, so it never looks too fake either, with the exception of a couple of dodgy gore effects.
Underwater is a decent enough sci-fi-horror thriller that suffer a bit from pacing issues, but a good watch for those of you who like movie monsters.
I actually enjoyed Underwater for the most part, it's just that somewhere in the middle, it really starts to drag a bit, and I'm not even quite sure why - there's always something going on but it just lost me a bit.
Fortunately, the up and down middle act is book-ended by a very strong and tense first act, and one hell of a final third - no spoilers here but holy fuck!!!
The ending 'reveal' honestly elevates Underwater to loftier heights.
It also benefits from a good cast. Kristen Stewart has really grown on me in recent years and she's a fantastic lead in this. Always a pleasure to have Jessica Henwick and John Gallagher Jr. onscreen as well.
As per usual, I couldn't really get on with T.J. Miller - there's just something about that dude that always feels a bit too try hard - people liked him in Deadpool and now he's just typecast as the comic relief - Underwater doesn't really need comic relief.
There are some genuinely tense moments here and there, and the Aliens vibes are prominent - it's of course a few tiers under Aliens, but the bottom of the sea feels just as empty and otherworldly as space, and the creature designs are suitably eerie. The low light levels cover up a lot of CGI, so it never looks too fake either, with the exception of a couple of dodgy gore effects.
Underwater is a decent enough sci-fi-horror thriller that suffer a bit from pacing issues, but a good watch for those of you who like movie monsters.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Lifeforce (1985) in Movies
Oct 22, 2020
Fun fact - this is the second film I've seen where a female character uses Patrick Stewart's body to communicate with someone. Maybe this is some kind of niche sub-genre I'm just discovering...
Lifeforce is a film of three parts - it's one part sci-fi, one part British thriller, and one part ridiculous end-of-the-world horror, in that precise order.
The sci-fi part is decent enough, where a space crew discovers a strange object near Halley's comet, and further inspection reveals giant bats and sleeping naked humans in crystal coffins that turn out to weird space vampires (so on board with this ridiculous plot). It has a great aesthetic and some good special effects (keeping in mind this movie came out in 1985). The puppetry when some of the space-vampire victims come back to life is awesome.
Then the film shifts to Colonels Caine (Peter Firth) and Carlsen (Steve Railsback) as they track down one of the escaped aliens through London, whilst it kills and shapeshifts to it's hearts content.
This portion is slower, but Lifeforce has an engaging screenplay, and boasts a cast good enough to keep things entertaing. Patrick Stewart, Frank Finlay, Mathilda May, and John Hallam amongst others provide a solid ensemble that ensures the film doesn't fall into silly territory.
Everything leads up to the absurd finale however. London is completely aflame, hordes of vampire zombie things flood the street, there are bodies everywhere, shit is blowing up, vampire aliens are being vanquished with giant swords, people are being thrown out of helicopters - Tobe Hooper doesn't fuck about with this kind of stuff, and Lifeforce has a final sequence that puts a lot of other horror films to shame, and looks fantastic. It's glorious - This sci-fi-horror gem is well worth checking out.
Lifeforce is a film of three parts - it's one part sci-fi, one part British thriller, and one part ridiculous end-of-the-world horror, in that precise order.
The sci-fi part is decent enough, where a space crew discovers a strange object near Halley's comet, and further inspection reveals giant bats and sleeping naked humans in crystal coffins that turn out to weird space vampires (so on board with this ridiculous plot). It has a great aesthetic and some good special effects (keeping in mind this movie came out in 1985). The puppetry when some of the space-vampire victims come back to life is awesome.
Then the film shifts to Colonels Caine (Peter Firth) and Carlsen (Steve Railsback) as they track down one of the escaped aliens through London, whilst it kills and shapeshifts to it's hearts content.
This portion is slower, but Lifeforce has an engaging screenplay, and boasts a cast good enough to keep things entertaing. Patrick Stewart, Frank Finlay, Mathilda May, and John Hallam amongst others provide a solid ensemble that ensures the film doesn't fall into silly territory.
Everything leads up to the absurd finale however. London is completely aflame, hordes of vampire zombie things flood the street, there are bodies everywhere, shit is blowing up, vampire aliens are being vanquished with giant swords, people are being thrown out of helicopters - Tobe Hooper doesn't fuck about with this kind of stuff, and Lifeforce has a final sequence that puts a lot of other horror films to shame, and looks fantastic. It's glorious - This sci-fi-horror gem is well worth checking out.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All of Me (1984) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020
Wonderful physical comedy performance by Martin
Over the history of cinema, there are certain Director/Lead Actor pairings that are perfect for each other. John Ford/John Wayne, Alfred Hitchcock/Jimmy Stewart, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro, Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks all come to mind. Add to that the inspired comedic pairing of Director Carl Reiner and the great Steve Martin.
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Happiest Season (2020) in Movies
Jan 4, 2021
Happiest Season definitely makes a refreshing change for a mainstream Christmas movie, but it's a real shame it didn't make it to the big screen.
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Edward Scissorhands (1990) in Movies
Apr 23, 2020
Has more heart than later Burton/Depp collaborations
There have been many actor/director long term collaborations through the years - John Ford/John Wayne, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro and Alfred Hitchock/Jimmy Stewart all come to mind. Another interesting collaboration is the unique one between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The films these 2 have made have shown an "outsider" being introduced into an environment - usually in a quirky and gothic dark manner. So it was interesting to go back to the film that started it all - 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)