Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bringing Up Baby (1938) in Movies
Apr 4, 2020
The Perfect Example of a "Screwball Comedy"
It's always a bit of a crap-shoot when one shows an 82 year old, black and white film to a couple of college age students. But, with a film as crazy/zany as the 1938 Howard Hawks screwball comedy BRINGING UP BABY, the odds are in your favor.
The college students loved it.
Starring Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn - in their screwball comedy best - BRINGING UP BABY tells the story of a paleontologist (Grant) who is looking to land a $1 million donation, but ends up crossing paths with a wealthy heiress (Hepburn) - who marches to the beat of her own drum.
Told at breakneck speed by Hawks - a trademark of screwball comedy - BRINGING UP BABY is smart, witty, wacky and very, very funny. I was surprised at this viewing just how fast-paced this film is - you do not come up for a breath throughout the entire film. It's a bit exhausting - and exhilarating - kind of like hanging onto a wild roller coaster ride.
Remembered more for their dramatic roles, Hepburn and Grant are marvelous as the 2 leads of this film, they banter back and forth - quickly - throughout the film, they have tremendous chemistry with each other and their patter is a hallmark of these types of films and I was amazed at the dexterity and timing of these 2 pros. They make the dialogue work by not commenting on the comedy of it, but just moving onto the next scene, the next line, the next situation.
The supporting cast - featuring such rubber faced character actors as Charles Ruggles, Barry Fitzgerald, Fritz Feld and Leona Roberts - are just as good and add to the insanity that is seen on the screen. All corralled beautifully by one of the greatest Directors of the Old Hollywood era (the era before 1960), Howard Hawks who would end up directing a few years later the epitome of the screwball comedy - HIS GIRL FRIDAY - but who also Directed such classics as SCARFACE, THE BIG SLEEP, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES as well as quite a few John Wayne westerns like RED RIVER, RIO BRAVO and EL DORADO.
Oh...and did I mention...the 3rd leading performer of this film is a Leopard?
If you are looking to introduce someone (or maybe yourself) to a film type of a bygone era - you could do worse than BRINGING UP BABY - a screwball comedy that clips along in 102 fast-paced minutes.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The college students loved it.
Starring Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn - in their screwball comedy best - BRINGING UP BABY tells the story of a paleontologist (Grant) who is looking to land a $1 million donation, but ends up crossing paths with a wealthy heiress (Hepburn) - who marches to the beat of her own drum.
Told at breakneck speed by Hawks - a trademark of screwball comedy - BRINGING UP BABY is smart, witty, wacky and very, very funny. I was surprised at this viewing just how fast-paced this film is - you do not come up for a breath throughout the entire film. It's a bit exhausting - and exhilarating - kind of like hanging onto a wild roller coaster ride.
Remembered more for their dramatic roles, Hepburn and Grant are marvelous as the 2 leads of this film, they banter back and forth - quickly - throughout the film, they have tremendous chemistry with each other and their patter is a hallmark of these types of films and I was amazed at the dexterity and timing of these 2 pros. They make the dialogue work by not commenting on the comedy of it, but just moving onto the next scene, the next line, the next situation.
The supporting cast - featuring such rubber faced character actors as Charles Ruggles, Barry Fitzgerald, Fritz Feld and Leona Roberts - are just as good and add to the insanity that is seen on the screen. All corralled beautifully by one of the greatest Directors of the Old Hollywood era (the era before 1960), Howard Hawks who would end up directing a few years later the epitome of the screwball comedy - HIS GIRL FRIDAY - but who also Directed such classics as SCARFACE, THE BIG SLEEP, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES as well as quite a few John Wayne westerns like RED RIVER, RIO BRAVO and EL DORADO.
Oh...and did I mention...the 3rd leading performer of this film is a Leopard?
If you are looking to introduce someone (or maybe yourself) to a film type of a bygone era - you could do worse than BRINGING UP BABY - a screwball comedy that clips along in 102 fast-paced minutes.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Kink (Vixen Bluff #2) in Books
Jul 2, 2021
99 of 250
Kindle
Kink ( Vixen Bluff book 2)
By Catherine Black
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
Molly I haven't been with a man in over five years. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking. You're wondering if I have a couple dozen cats or if I have to sweep the cobwebs out before getting a Brazilian. But, ladies, I wanna let you in on a little secret... There is money to be made in what us working girls at White Light Sirens like to call 'non-penetrative fantasies'. That's right. You want me—Molly Wilder—to parade around the room dressed like a giant teddy bear while you touch yourself? Sure. You want me to paint your naked body, turning you into an impressionist's wet dream? I'm on it. But if you even think about sliding between my legs, I'll rip our contract to shreds and kick you out the door so fast your manhood won't have time to soften. Barrett Molly makes a snap judgment about me the second I walk through her studio door, but I'm used to it. Women take one look at this body, this face, and immediately label me. I can see the flashing sign above their heads every time. “Danger! Danger!” If they only knew... Molly thinks I'm a client—just another John—and that's fine. I'm content to play her game because when I break her rules, when I expose her secrets and have her on her knees, vulnerable and afraid, then she'll understand. But until then, I have a job to do, and my first order of business is to make Molly realize I'm a man worth breaking for. Whether she knows it or not, her dry spell is about to come to an end. Make it rain, Miss Wilder. Make it rain.
Haha this was just pure filth! I usually skip most sex scenes in some of these books but if I did that I would have about 50 pages to read! The only difference being this one I didn’t as it was well written! The only reason I haven’t gone with a 4 star as I think it lacked a little depth, I know it’s only a short book it took just over an hour to read I just can’t figure out what was missing. Not sure I’ll ever look at a jar of peanut butter the same way again though 😂.
Kindle
Kink ( Vixen Bluff book 2)
By Catherine Black
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
Molly I haven't been with a man in over five years. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking. You're wondering if I have a couple dozen cats or if I have to sweep the cobwebs out before getting a Brazilian. But, ladies, I wanna let you in on a little secret... There is money to be made in what us working girls at White Light Sirens like to call 'non-penetrative fantasies'. That's right. You want me—Molly Wilder—to parade around the room dressed like a giant teddy bear while you touch yourself? Sure. You want me to paint your naked body, turning you into an impressionist's wet dream? I'm on it. But if you even think about sliding between my legs, I'll rip our contract to shreds and kick you out the door so fast your manhood won't have time to soften. Barrett Molly makes a snap judgment about me the second I walk through her studio door, but I'm used to it. Women take one look at this body, this face, and immediately label me. I can see the flashing sign above their heads every time. “Danger! Danger!” If they only knew... Molly thinks I'm a client—just another John—and that's fine. I'm content to play her game because when I break her rules, when I expose her secrets and have her on her knees, vulnerable and afraid, then she'll understand. But until then, I have a job to do, and my first order of business is to make Molly realize I'm a man worth breaking for. Whether she knows it or not, her dry spell is about to come to an end. Make it rain, Miss Wilder. Make it rain.
Haha this was just pure filth! I usually skip most sex scenes in some of these books but if I did that I would have about 50 pages to read! The only difference being this one I didn’t as it was well written! The only reason I haven’t gone with a 4 star as I think it lacked a little depth, I know it’s only a short book it took just over an hour to read I just can’t figure out what was missing. Not sure I’ll ever look at a jar of peanut butter the same way again though 😂.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“In to Africa”.
I managed to miss this film when it was first shown at the end of 2016. And what a shame as it would have UNDOUBTEDLY made my “Films of the Year” list.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
JT (287 KP) rated Easy A (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Flat, dull and lacking in any laughs. Harsh this verdict might be, but I’m afraid it is about the long and the short of it. As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles. The lovely Emma Stone whose turn in Superbad put her on the road to stardom is short of her best, and at times is cringe worthily bad.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Shark Movie That Struggles To Stay Afloat
47 Meters Down Uncaged is a 2019 survival/horror movie directed by Johannes Robert and written by Robert and Ernest Riera with producers James Harris, Mark Lane and Robert Jones. It was produced by They Fyzz Facility and distributed by Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Corinne Foxx, Sophie Nelisse, Brianne Tju and Sistaine Stallone.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Hollow Ones: the Blackwood Tapes Vol. 1 in Books
Sep 9, 2020
Paranormal and occult (1 more)
Great story
A filler character with potential (1 more)
Overly used details
[This is the ARC version - - - John Silence was renamed Hugo Blackwood in the final version]
I've grown up watching a lot of Guillermo Del Toro's movies. One of my favorites that he was the screenwriter for is Hellboy. Yet, I spent almost four months at the beginning of this year playing the video game Death Stranding, which features Del Toro as a main character. I bring the former and latter up because they rank very high on some of my favorite things list, and I believe that The Hollow Ones is one of the best books I have read in a long time. This is one of those few rare books which I wish I could live in as a lover of the paranormal/occult.
Odessa Hardwicke - - - an FBI greenhorn - - - is ordering dinner with her partner, Walt Leppo, when they get a phone call that someone is on a shooting rampage from an airplane. (Hardwicke looks up to Leppo as a father figure, and he sees her as a daughter) We learn that the two have been on a corruption case involving a politician's former deputy chief of staff- - - they suddenly realize that the airplane may be tied to this man, and he may also be the one going on the killing spree. The pair speed off to the deputy chief's home in fear that he may be going to kill his recently divorced wife, who was waiting to receive not only their huge house, but a nice lump sum of money.
When Hardwicke and Leppo get to the house, after stopping the deputy chief, Hardwicke suddenly finds herself holding a gun on her partner while he tries to murder a little girl. She has only two choices to make: a) kill her partner, and face the backlash of shooting an agent in the line-of-duty or b) let him kill the girl and possibly herself- - - Hardwicke chooses to shoot and kill Leppo. Immediately after this, she sees something like a heatwave leave Leppo's body and disappear. When other agents arrive to the crime scene, Hardwicke keeps this information to herself, wanting to know instead why her partner suddenly turned into a murderer. Pending an investigation, Hardwicke is put on desk duty, including errands that the Bureau doesn't want to deal with. Enter Agent Earl Solomon.
On order by the FBI, Hardwicke is sent to clean out an office used by a retired agent that was hospitalized for a stroke. She takes his things to the hospital (not knowing what to do with them), and while discussing her plight with him and revealing that she had seen a sort of heat vapor leave Leppo's body, Solomon quickly tells her to write a letter to a man named John Silence, and place it in a nearly invisible mailbox in the Wallstreet area of New York.
From this point on, the book really begins to take off, and the fact that the authors brought in the religion of Palo (the Mayombe branch) is fascinating for anyone interested in the occult. The buildup of the story is really enjoyable, too, especially when Hardwicke decides to write and deliver the letter.
Readers also get to see Solomon's story from years before when he was one of the first African Americans to be recruited into the FBI. We see Solomon being sent to Mississippi in 1962, where a number of lynchings of African Americans have occurred, but the FBI hasn't been called in until the last murder: a lynching of a white man. Solomon can't help but question if he was only brought on this case because he is African American. Ignoring the bigotry, Solomon does his job, and comes across a young boy who is possessed by some sort of demon. The boy tells Solomon to bring him Silence, a man who Solomon has never heard of.
John Silence is also an interesting character; a nearly 500-year-old occult detective. We also get to see flashbacks of his life in the 1500's, learning about his occupation as a barrister, and his first encounter with the paranormal- - - something that has plagued him since- - - as well as his teacher in the occult. In the chapters of today, Silence is a mysterious figure, and carries himself much like a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even by the end of the book, readers are still left with questions over what Silence has been through in the last 500 years. He, having only met Solomon 58 years prior- - - the two have a huge history together. Proven by the fact of how many 'cases' Solomon has hidden in his private records room that the two have embarked on together.
The Hollow Ones is a very enjoyable book, but I could only give it 3 out of 5 stars. The rating is because the authors- - - Del Toro and Hogan- - - used so many details, like the make and model of a passing vehicle, that it would interrupt the flow of the story, being bogged down by it. One other problem that I had was with the character Laurena; she was a 'filler character' (a character that is brought in just to make something happen in the story), but she was written to be Hardwicke's best friend. This was highly unbelievable with the two times she showed up in the story.
I really, really hope that Del Toro and Hogan decide to make this a series, and that the rest of the books show us Solomon's and Silence's journeys together! I highly recommend this book to people who love the paranormal/occult crime books.
I've grown up watching a lot of Guillermo Del Toro's movies. One of my favorites that he was the screenwriter for is Hellboy. Yet, I spent almost four months at the beginning of this year playing the video game Death Stranding, which features Del Toro as a main character. I bring the former and latter up because they rank very high on some of my favorite things list, and I believe that The Hollow Ones is one of the best books I have read in a long time. This is one of those few rare books which I wish I could live in as a lover of the paranormal/occult.
Odessa Hardwicke - - - an FBI greenhorn - - - is ordering dinner with her partner, Walt Leppo, when they get a phone call that someone is on a shooting rampage from an airplane. (Hardwicke looks up to Leppo as a father figure, and he sees her as a daughter) We learn that the two have been on a corruption case involving a politician's former deputy chief of staff- - - they suddenly realize that the airplane may be tied to this man, and he may also be the one going on the killing spree. The pair speed off to the deputy chief's home in fear that he may be going to kill his recently divorced wife, who was waiting to receive not only their huge house, but a nice lump sum of money.
When Hardwicke and Leppo get to the house, after stopping the deputy chief, Hardwicke suddenly finds herself holding a gun on her partner while he tries to murder a little girl. She has only two choices to make: a) kill her partner, and face the backlash of shooting an agent in the line-of-duty or b) let him kill the girl and possibly herself- - - Hardwicke chooses to shoot and kill Leppo. Immediately after this, she sees something like a heatwave leave Leppo's body and disappear. When other agents arrive to the crime scene, Hardwicke keeps this information to herself, wanting to know instead why her partner suddenly turned into a murderer. Pending an investigation, Hardwicke is put on desk duty, including errands that the Bureau doesn't want to deal with. Enter Agent Earl Solomon.
On order by the FBI, Hardwicke is sent to clean out an office used by a retired agent that was hospitalized for a stroke. She takes his things to the hospital (not knowing what to do with them), and while discussing her plight with him and revealing that she had seen a sort of heat vapor leave Leppo's body, Solomon quickly tells her to write a letter to a man named John Silence, and place it in a nearly invisible mailbox in the Wallstreet area of New York.
From this point on, the book really begins to take off, and the fact that the authors brought in the religion of Palo (the Mayombe branch) is fascinating for anyone interested in the occult. The buildup of the story is really enjoyable, too, especially when Hardwicke decides to write and deliver the letter.
Readers also get to see Solomon's story from years before when he was one of the first African Americans to be recruited into the FBI. We see Solomon being sent to Mississippi in 1962, where a number of lynchings of African Americans have occurred, but the FBI hasn't been called in until the last murder: a lynching of a white man. Solomon can't help but question if he was only brought on this case because he is African American. Ignoring the bigotry, Solomon does his job, and comes across a young boy who is possessed by some sort of demon. The boy tells Solomon to bring him Silence, a man who Solomon has never heard of.
John Silence is also an interesting character; a nearly 500-year-old occult detective. We also get to see flashbacks of his life in the 1500's, learning about his occupation as a barrister, and his first encounter with the paranormal- - - something that has plagued him since- - - as well as his teacher in the occult. In the chapters of today, Silence is a mysterious figure, and carries himself much like a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even by the end of the book, readers are still left with questions over what Silence has been through in the last 500 years. He, having only met Solomon 58 years prior- - - the two have a huge history together. Proven by the fact of how many 'cases' Solomon has hidden in his private records room that the two have embarked on together.
The Hollow Ones is a very enjoyable book, but I could only give it 3 out of 5 stars. The rating is because the authors- - - Del Toro and Hogan- - - used so many details, like the make and model of a passing vehicle, that it would interrupt the flow of the story, being bogged down by it. One other problem that I had was with the character Laurena; she was a 'filler character' (a character that is brought in just to make something happen in the story), but she was written to be Hardwicke's best friend. This was highly unbelievable with the two times she showed up in the story.
I really, really hope that Del Toro and Hogan decide to make this a series, and that the rest of the books show us Solomon's and Silence's journeys together! I highly recommend this book to people who love the paranormal/occult crime books.