Search
Search results
Becs (244 KP) rated One Day in December: A Christmas Love Story in Books
Oct 2, 2019
One Day in December follows Laurie’s journey of finding the boy she saw and fell in love with at the bus stop on December 21, 2008. But when Sarah gets a new boyfriend, things take a turn for the worst for Laurie.
Sarah decides to throw a party for her friends and to introduce her new BF to Laurie. When he shows up, Laurie instantly recognizes him as the bus boy. But she doesn’t say anything to Sarah because she doesn’t want to ruin something good for her best friend. Over the years, Sarah and Jack start drifting apart and it eventually leads to their separation. But Laurie and Jack couldn’t get together because Laurie was married to Oscar.
The story then follows Laurie while she struggles with her marriage with Oscar and Jack who struggles with trying to love anybody else but Laurie. Until the ending where finally Jack and Laurie get their chance.
Characters:
Laurie – the main character. She’s quiet and a lovely friend and she didn’t deserve all the pain that she went through
Jack – HE’S THE BUS BOY. Has his moments where he’s kind of a butt nugget, but it’s understandable in the moments that he acts like that.
Sarah – BFF to Laurie but the two of them act more like sisters. I didn’t agree with how she acted towards Laurie in the middle of the book. But I do understand why she did it.
Oscar – Laurie’s husband (later on). A complete and utter douche – but what do you expect from someone who come’s from wealth
Lucille – Oscar’s mom
Cressida – ex of Oscar
Luke – husband to Sarah (later on)
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any grammar or spelling errors that needed to be fixed. Everything seemed very well written and was very informative.
2. Josie Silver does a great job about giving a ton of background on not only the story and plot, but also each of the characters.
3. Speaking of the plot, it was absolutely amazing!
4. I would definitely reread One Day in December because I truly enjoyed this little story so much.
5. The overall story was very well-written and contained enough background to keep the reader going. I rather enjoyed this little novel!
“That is the thing about flowers, isn’t it? They’re lush and extravagant and demand your attention, and you think they’re the most exquisite thing, but then in the shortest time they’re not very lovely at all. They wilt and they turn the water brown, and soon you can’t hold onto them any longer.”
Sarah decides to throw a party for her friends and to introduce her new BF to Laurie. When he shows up, Laurie instantly recognizes him as the bus boy. But she doesn’t say anything to Sarah because she doesn’t want to ruin something good for her best friend. Over the years, Sarah and Jack start drifting apart and it eventually leads to their separation. But Laurie and Jack couldn’t get together because Laurie was married to Oscar.
The story then follows Laurie while she struggles with her marriage with Oscar and Jack who struggles with trying to love anybody else but Laurie. Until the ending where finally Jack and Laurie get their chance.
Characters:
Laurie – the main character. She’s quiet and a lovely friend and she didn’t deserve all the pain that she went through
Jack – HE’S THE BUS BOY. Has his moments where he’s kind of a butt nugget, but it’s understandable in the moments that he acts like that.
Sarah – BFF to Laurie but the two of them act more like sisters. I didn’t agree with how she acted towards Laurie in the middle of the book. But I do understand why she did it.
Oscar – Laurie’s husband (later on). A complete and utter douche – but what do you expect from someone who come’s from wealth
Lucille – Oscar’s mom
Cressida – ex of Oscar
Luke – husband to Sarah (later on)
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any grammar or spelling errors that needed to be fixed. Everything seemed very well written and was very informative.
2. Josie Silver does a great job about giving a ton of background on not only the story and plot, but also each of the characters.
3. Speaking of the plot, it was absolutely amazing!
4. I would definitely reread One Day in December because I truly enjoyed this little story so much.
5. The overall story was very well-written and contained enough background to keep the reader going. I rather enjoyed this little novel!
“That is the thing about flowers, isn’t it? They’re lush and extravagant and demand your attention, and you think they’re the most exquisite thing, but then in the shortest time they’re not very lovely at all. They wilt and they turn the water brown, and soon you can’t hold onto them any longer.”
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Little Big Planet 3 in Video Games
Dec 12, 2017 (Updated Dec 12, 2017)
Lots of fun
This is such a quirky and fun game. It isn’t just for kids either, as an adult you can have so much fun playing this!
The main story mode is lengthy and full of unique and interesting levels that vary in difficulty. Sackboy and his friends are such adorable and silly characters to play, and it’s great to have the option to play as all of them as they each have their own unique abilities. The graphics too are very impressive and full of life and colour. And it has the voices of Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry to make it even better.
The best thing about this though is the multiplayer story mode. My boyfriend and i had hours of fun playing this together, and playing with someone else gives it an extra level of difficulty as well as frustration, especially if that person keeps dying and you don’t...
Conversely though, some of the multiplayer options are the downside to this game. Some of the areas in story mode are only accessible with a certain number of players, sometime 3/4 and how often do you play with that many people? It means you can’t complete all of the game.
Still that aside, this is a fantastic couch co-op game for all ages.
The main story mode is lengthy and full of unique and interesting levels that vary in difficulty. Sackboy and his friends are such adorable and silly characters to play, and it’s great to have the option to play as all of them as they each have their own unique abilities. The graphics too are very impressive and full of life and colour. And it has the voices of Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry to make it even better.
The best thing about this though is the multiplayer story mode. My boyfriend and i had hours of fun playing this together, and playing with someone else gives it an extra level of difficulty as well as frustration, especially if that person keeps dying and you don’t...
Conversely though, some of the multiplayer options are the downside to this game. Some of the areas in story mode are only accessible with a certain number of players, sometime 3/4 and how often do you play with that many people? It means you can’t complete all of the game.
Still that aside, this is a fantastic couch co-op game for all ages.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 29, 2020
What is there to say about Halloween that hasn't already been said? Not quite the first slasher, but arguably the film to throw this particular sub genre and all its tropes into the spotlight, and it's pretty much the perfect horror.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Masterpiece
Set in 2002, Lady Bird is a coming of age story for high school senior Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson. The film follows her pursuit of college while growing up in a low-income family. While that is the main plot, Lady Bird is about so much more. Quite frankly, the movie is perfect. I haven't seem a film this memorable since Boyhood.
Trying to find something wrong with this film is like trying to catch a fly while blinking rapidly. Not only does it do everything right, it does it flawlessly. What impresses me the most is this is Greta Gerwig's directorial debut (who also did the screenplay). For someone to hit a homerun like this on their first try is an incredible thing to consider.
I won't go into too much detail here because I want you go into this with as little knowledge of the film as I, but here are a few things I loved about it. At just ninety-three minutes, Lady Bird carries a consistent pace with an ending that is just too perfect for words. It's going to make you laugh out loud. A lot. It will probably make you tear up a bit as well as it's just as much heartbreaking as it is hilarious. The acting, highlighted by Saiorse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf is stellar through and through. Emotions are captured in a way that what you feel you are seeing is something real, not a script. So real it hits home in a way that might surprise you. Finally, this film gets all the little things right. Those small extra mile touches that add a lasting touch to a film.
As cliche as I have to be in this moment, Lady Bird is a masterpiece. That's why I'm giving it a perfect 100.
Trying to find something wrong with this film is like trying to catch a fly while blinking rapidly. Not only does it do everything right, it does it flawlessly. What impresses me the most is this is Greta Gerwig's directorial debut (who also did the screenplay). For someone to hit a homerun like this on their first try is an incredible thing to consider.
I won't go into too much detail here because I want you go into this with as little knowledge of the film as I, but here are a few things I loved about it. At just ninety-three minutes, Lady Bird carries a consistent pace with an ending that is just too perfect for words. It's going to make you laugh out loud. A lot. It will probably make you tear up a bit as well as it's just as much heartbreaking as it is hilarious. The acting, highlighted by Saiorse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf is stellar through and through. Emotions are captured in a way that what you feel you are seeing is something real, not a script. So real it hits home in a way that might surprise you. Finally, this film gets all the little things right. Those small extra mile touches that add a lasting touch to a film.
As cliche as I have to be in this moment, Lady Bird is a masterpiece. That's why I'm giving it a perfect 100.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Mist (2007) in Movies
Nov 30, 2020
"It appears we may have a problem of some magnitude."
The Mist is flat out fantastic for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it has a ridiculously good cast - Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher, Tony Jones, Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn, William Sadler, Alexa Davalos, Sam Witwer...there isn't a weak link at all, and it's a damn good job - The Mist isn't a straight forward creature feature. Although it's does have it's fair share of monster moments, it's main focus is on the dangers of fanatacism, and the delusions of human beings, as a lot of regular Joes who are just scared of the events unfolding, start to blindly follow the words of Mrs. Carmody, someone who is truly unhinged, and truly believes what she preaches - it's a concept all too familiar in today's real world, and Marcia Gay Harden puts in a show stopping performance, and is one the easiest-to-hate horror antagonists ever put to screen.
The titular Mist is realised superbly, and also does a good job at hiding the CGI monsters effectively. What we do get shown is just enough for a decent payoff, and there are some breathtaking shots during the films climax. For the most part though, it's a masterclass in stimulating the audiences imagination, and is scary in what you don't actually see.
And the of course there is THAT ending. If you somehow haven't seen The Mist yet, then go in with as little knowledge as possible, and let that ending just destroy your very soul. Its propels what is a good horror, into an all timer, even if it is a straight up depression simulator.
Really worth a look for any fans of horror, sci-fi, monsters, or Stephen King, and seek out the black and white version for extra satisfaction!
The Mist is flat out fantastic for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it has a ridiculously good cast - Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher, Tony Jones, Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn, William Sadler, Alexa Davalos, Sam Witwer...there isn't a weak link at all, and it's a damn good job - The Mist isn't a straight forward creature feature. Although it's does have it's fair share of monster moments, it's main focus is on the dangers of fanatacism, and the delusions of human beings, as a lot of regular Joes who are just scared of the events unfolding, start to blindly follow the words of Mrs. Carmody, someone who is truly unhinged, and truly believes what she preaches - it's a concept all too familiar in today's real world, and Marcia Gay Harden puts in a show stopping performance, and is one the easiest-to-hate horror antagonists ever put to screen.
The titular Mist is realised superbly, and also does a good job at hiding the CGI monsters effectively. What we do get shown is just enough for a decent payoff, and there are some breathtaking shots during the films climax. For the most part though, it's a masterclass in stimulating the audiences imagination, and is scary in what you don't actually see.
And the of course there is THAT ending. If you somehow haven't seen The Mist yet, then go in with as little knowledge as possible, and let that ending just destroy your very soul. Its propels what is a good horror, into an all timer, even if it is a straight up depression simulator.
Really worth a look for any fans of horror, sci-fi, monsters, or Stephen King, and seek out the black and white version for extra satisfaction!
Merissa (11765 KP) rated The Blacksmith and the Ex-Con (Farthingdale Ranch #2) in Books
May 25, 2021 (Updated Jul 26, 2023)
THE BLACKSMITH AND THE EX-CON is the second book in the Farthingdale Ranch series, although you can read it as a standalone as I have.
Ellis is the ex-con who has had a hard time of it. Now, I'm not excusing what he's done, but he did do it for the right reasons. And given the relationship he did have, I can understand the mutism. My heart ached for him, it really did. Jasper is a big, gruff, sweetie who would do anything for those he lets in. And he certainly lets Ellis in. The romance develops slowly, but compassion and kindness are there from the get-go.
There are easter eggs in here for Honey from the Lion (that I have read) which is part of the Love Across Time series. I'm ashamed to admit that the fate of the ranch that Laurie disappeared from never even entered my mind, so it was great to see this from a different view.
I loved all the characters in this book - even Phil! He was horrible, but exactly as he was supposed to be. Obviously, the biggest growth was Ellis, but Jasper comes along nicely too. The supporting cast provides understanding, love, and humour to our main two.
This book was extremely well-written and paced, and certainly kept my attention from the first word to the very last. I will be reading book one in this series simply down to the characters and Ms North's writing. If that isn't a recommendation, then I don't know what is!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 25, 2021
Ellis is the ex-con who has had a hard time of it. Now, I'm not excusing what he's done, but he did do it for the right reasons. And given the relationship he did have, I can understand the mutism. My heart ached for him, it really did. Jasper is a big, gruff, sweetie who would do anything for those he lets in. And he certainly lets Ellis in. The romance develops slowly, but compassion and kindness are there from the get-go.
There are easter eggs in here for Honey from the Lion (that I have read) which is part of the Love Across Time series. I'm ashamed to admit that the fate of the ranch that Laurie disappeared from never even entered my mind, so it was great to see this from a different view.
I loved all the characters in this book - even Phil! He was horrible, but exactly as he was supposed to be. Obviously, the biggest growth was Ellis, but Jasper comes along nicely too. The supporting cast provides understanding, love, and humour to our main two.
This book was extremely well-written and paced, and certainly kept my attention from the first word to the very last. I will be reading book one in this series simply down to the characters and Ms North's writing. If that isn't a recommendation, then I don't know what is!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 25, 2021
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Dec 16, 2018
Truly a classic
With Toy Story 4 coming out in theaters this summer, I thought I'd go back and check out a beloved classice - the original TOY STORY (1995) to see if this film holds up to my memory of it.
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)