Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Dancer in the Dark (2000) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Selma is a simple woman leading a simple life. She lives with her only son in a trailer on the property of her friends the nice cop and his wife. She works at a metal factory making sinks and basins. She doesn't make a lot of money, so she holds on to almost every penny she earns for something secret. She can't even buy her son a present for his birthday, so her friends and landlords buy the boy the used bicycle he has been yearning for. Selma also enjoys musicals. She loves them. Especially The Sound of Music, She is actually cast in a local production and gets to play Maria. She can even hear rhythm through the common sounds of life like a train on its tracks or even the sounds of people walking. She creates melodies in her head to distract from the mundane events of life. Sometimes these melodies turn into full production numbers only visible in the confines of her cerebrum.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020 (Updated Feb 12, 2020)
Birds of Prey is a mixed bag, but there's just about enough good there to make it an enjoyable time.
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way đź‘Ť)
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way đź‘Ť)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
MyMinis - For LEGO® Minifigs
Shopping and Reference
App
MyMinis was last updated for Series 14 with 16 awesome minifigures! Use the Photo Touch Guide to...
Bonita Avenue
Book
A darkly hilarious tale of a model family's disintegration. Professor Siem Sigerius - maths genius,...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Debbiereadsbook (1487 KP) rated Ready For It (MacAteer Brothers #2) in Books
Feb 3, 2021
a much more enjoyable, but darker read than book one, and I loved it!
Indepedent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 2 in the MacAteer Brothers series, and it would help to have read book one, Run With It. Not totally necessary, but I would personally recommend you do. You'll get a better feel of Melanie, and Owen and his brothers, I think.
Melanie is Bev's best friend, and looks after herself and stuff anyone else. Owen is one of Connor's younger brothers. Owen has had a bit of a crush on Mel for a long time, and when Mel is left in a difficult place, he steps up. Then the reasons WHY Mel is the way she is with men comes out, and Owen is all Alpha-Male-Protect-Whats-Mine.
I found this a much darker read, given Mel's history, but also I bloody LOVED it!
Mel has a voice in the first person, and Owen in the third. I knew this going in, and expected it, and I enjoyed reading Owen's voice so much more than Connor's. Owen is a gentle giant with a stutter and a speech impediment, that leaves him somewhat tongue tied amoung people he doesn't know, or isn't comfortable with. VERY quickly, Owen is speaking with mel in full sentences, with no sign of his problem. That should have clued him up, right quick, that somethign special was happening between them.
It takes time for Mel and Owen to fully commit, and to get together, and I LOVED being made to wait for it. I think I would have loved it even they had NOT got to the smexy times, I really do. Mel's little problem not withstanding. But once they do? OOOOEEEEE! They are committed and all in. I loved that.
Owen doesn't say much, verbally, but when we get him in his chapters, he is deep. He was hurt before, and you understand why he holds himself back some, but he loves Mel, from very early on, and it pained me when she kept friend-zoning him!
We get a bit more of Garrett, Owen's twin, and his book is next. We also meet the lady who will steal his heart. THAT book is next on my list, and given what we learn here, and reading the blurb, I think it may well be a bit darker than this one!
Billed as s spin off to the Dragon Runners series, it's not necessary to read those. I didn't like them, to be honest, but I'm loving these and I look forward to reading about the other set of twins further down the series!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 2 in the MacAteer Brothers series, and it would help to have read book one, Run With It. Not totally necessary, but I would personally recommend you do. You'll get a better feel of Melanie, and Owen and his brothers, I think.
Melanie is Bev's best friend, and looks after herself and stuff anyone else. Owen is one of Connor's younger brothers. Owen has had a bit of a crush on Mel for a long time, and when Mel is left in a difficult place, he steps up. Then the reasons WHY Mel is the way she is with men comes out, and Owen is all Alpha-Male-Protect-Whats-Mine.
I found this a much darker read, given Mel's history, but also I bloody LOVED it!
Mel has a voice in the first person, and Owen in the third. I knew this going in, and expected it, and I enjoyed reading Owen's voice so much more than Connor's. Owen is a gentle giant with a stutter and a speech impediment, that leaves him somewhat tongue tied amoung people he doesn't know, or isn't comfortable with. VERY quickly, Owen is speaking with mel in full sentences, with no sign of his problem. That should have clued him up, right quick, that somethign special was happening between them.
It takes time for Mel and Owen to fully commit, and to get together, and I LOVED being made to wait for it. I think I would have loved it even they had NOT got to the smexy times, I really do. Mel's little problem not withstanding. But once they do? OOOOEEEEE! They are committed and all in. I loved that.
Owen doesn't say much, verbally, but when we get him in his chapters, he is deep. He was hurt before, and you understand why he holds himself back some, but he loves Mel, from very early on, and it pained me when she kept friend-zoning him!
We get a bit more of Garrett, Owen's twin, and his book is next. We also meet the lady who will steal his heart. THAT book is next on my list, and given what we learn here, and reading the blurb, I think it may well be a bit darker than this one!
Billed as s spin off to the Dragon Runners series, it's not necessary to read those. I didn't like them, to be honest, but I'm loving these and I look forward to reading about the other set of twins further down the series!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Illeana Douglas recommended Ride the Pink Horse (1947) in Movies (curated)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Wicked Cometh in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I absolutely loved the cover of this book, it looks very sophisticated and truly beautiful. The main character in this novel is Hester White. A young lady who was forced to live in slums of London after her parent’s death. Because of a lucky accident, she ended up in a house, which belongs to a rich, Brock family. There she meets Rebekah, and after spending some time together, Hester starts having lesbian feelings towards her mistress. Together they start investigating why a lot of people mysteriously disappear in London. This is a second book where I meet a character named Hester who is smitten by her mistress and I have no idea why authors make Hesters lesbians…
I really liked the wide variety of characters in this novel, they all had different and very unique personalities, and I really liked how L. Carlin matched and balanced them all. The whole story was told from Hester’s perspective, and for me it was fully sufficient to enjoy it. I really liked Hester in this book, but sometimes her fantasies left me bored, because I really wanted to know what will happen next in the book, and all those fantasies felt like a drag.
I absolutely loved the setting of this novel. It was very interesting to read about these two opposite worlds of rich and poor. I was fascinated by the way author described London and it’s surroundings. I really liked the way L. Carlin combined romance and crime in this novel. In my opinion, it gave richness to the story. The investigation really absorbed me and I was struck by their findings. I liked all the twists and turns which author had to offer and they made me quite glued to the book.
The writing style of this novel was remarkable. I think, if the author can write a good book, he/she is gifted, but if the author can write a good book using old, classical writing style, they are bloody fantastic. 😀 For me, it seemed, that I am reading something, that was written in 1800ies and to understand that the person who wrote it is still alive, it simply blows my mind. Some of the words used in this book, I had to look up in a dictionary, because I haven’t heard them before. :0 I loved the way author ended this book, it has given a fair closure to this story and left me deeply satisfied with it. So, to conclude, I really enjoyed this dark and intriguing story, filled with diverse characters and very absorbing and constantly changing plot. It has great multiple stories to follow and I do recommend to give this book a try.
I really liked the wide variety of characters in this novel, they all had different and very unique personalities, and I really liked how L. Carlin matched and balanced them all. The whole story was told from Hester’s perspective, and for me it was fully sufficient to enjoy it. I really liked Hester in this book, but sometimes her fantasies left me bored, because I really wanted to know what will happen next in the book, and all those fantasies felt like a drag.
I absolutely loved the setting of this novel. It was very interesting to read about these two opposite worlds of rich and poor. I was fascinated by the way author described London and it’s surroundings. I really liked the way L. Carlin combined romance and crime in this novel. In my opinion, it gave richness to the story. The investigation really absorbed me and I was struck by their findings. I liked all the twists and turns which author had to offer and they made me quite glued to the book.
The writing style of this novel was remarkable. I think, if the author can write a good book, he/she is gifted, but if the author can write a good book using old, classical writing style, they are bloody fantastic. 😀 For me, it seemed, that I am reading something, that was written in 1800ies and to understand that the person who wrote it is still alive, it simply blows my mind. Some of the words used in this book, I had to look up in a dictionary, because I haven’t heard them before. :0 I loved the way author ended this book, it has given a fair closure to this story and left me deeply satisfied with it. So, to conclude, I really enjoyed this dark and intriguing story, filled with diverse characters and very absorbing and constantly changing plot. It has great multiple stories to follow and I do recommend to give this book a try.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Baylock Residence (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Patricia Woodhouse left this house years ago, she is drawn back during the war after her sister’s death, she wants to start a new life here, because the war has taken nearly everything else from her, but the past she spent so long trying to forget has come back to haunt her, as she looks for the truth of her sister’s death. Annabel is the help around the house, she stays after Patricia requests for her to stay and help her with the transition, she does help fill in about the past, including what happened to Susanna. Susanna is the sister that has passed away, we are left to wonder what caused her death.
Performances – Kelly Goudie in the leading role isn’t the strongest leading lady, when it comes to the reaction or horror scenes, we don’t get anything bad, it’s the everyday moments which come off flatter than they should do. Sarah Wynne Kordas is the only other main cast member that does everything needed without getting the best scenes.
Story – The story here follows a woman that returns to her home after years away to deal with a family loss, only to learn that the house has a bigger secret that hasn’t been unlock just yet. This is story that plays into the idea that your past can hold answers no matter how hard you look to forget it, it does also play into the ideas that a family can have secrets which will only disturb. The pace of the story isn’t the most convincing, with large amounts of the film being stuff happening behind characters most notable Patricia, we also end up teasing an idea to what is happening, only it just gets forgotten which would have added extra dimension to an abuse victim. The war time theme doesn’t help because the same story could easily happen at any other era too.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from how Patricia is struggling with the visions that she is having, not being able to balance reality with supernatural.
Settings – The film is set within the one house, which doesn’t look time accurate from the outside, it does show how the family home can be reunited from tragedy.
Special Effects – The film does use effects sparely, when they are used they do add an element to horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – The secret room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The non-horror moment conversations feel out of place.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror thriller that does have moments of strong tension, only it doesn’t keep this up for long enough to make us what to learn the truth.
Overall: Slow Burning Horror.
Performances – Kelly Goudie in the leading role isn’t the strongest leading lady, when it comes to the reaction or horror scenes, we don’t get anything bad, it’s the everyday moments which come off flatter than they should do. Sarah Wynne Kordas is the only other main cast member that does everything needed without getting the best scenes.
Story – The story here follows a woman that returns to her home after years away to deal with a family loss, only to learn that the house has a bigger secret that hasn’t been unlock just yet. This is story that plays into the idea that your past can hold answers no matter how hard you look to forget it, it does also play into the ideas that a family can have secrets which will only disturb. The pace of the story isn’t the most convincing, with large amounts of the film being stuff happening behind characters most notable Patricia, we also end up teasing an idea to what is happening, only it just gets forgotten which would have added extra dimension to an abuse victim. The war time theme doesn’t help because the same story could easily happen at any other era too.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from how Patricia is struggling with the visions that she is having, not being able to balance reality with supernatural.
Settings – The film is set within the one house, which doesn’t look time accurate from the outside, it does show how the family home can be reunited from tragedy.
Special Effects – The film does use effects sparely, when they are used they do add an element to horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – The secret room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The non-horror moment conversations feel out of place.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror thriller that does have moments of strong tension, only it doesn’t keep this up for long enough to make us what to learn the truth.
Overall: Slow Burning Horror.