Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Feb 16, 2019
A slow meditation of the last days of a tortured artist
he artist as a tortured soul.
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Midge (525 KP) rated Restaurant Weeks are Murder in Books
Mar 28, 2019
Murder & Mayhem In The Kitchen
“Restaurant Weeks Are Murder” is Libby Klein’s very enjoyable third novel, chock full of madness and mayhem in the ‘Poppy McAllister Mystery’ series. The first book is ‘Class Reunions Are Murder,’ followed by book two which is ‘Midnight Snacks Are Murder.’
I haven’t read these other books in this series yet, however, I don’t think that this spoilt my enjoyment of this novel. That said, there is nothing more exciting than picking up a book which is the first in a new series.
Poppy McAllister is opening a new Bed & Breakfast in Cape May, New Jersey, but working in a professional kitchen has always been her passion. Now she’s realising her dream, at least briefly, as she is teaming up with her former fiancée Tim and his partner, Gigi, during a high-profile Restaurant Week challenge. Poppy’s speciality is pastries and if anyone can make glorious gluten-free goodies, it’s Poppy.
As it might be expected, things start to go badly wrong very quickly, especially when some ingredients get switched and Tim is accused of sabotage. Relatively harmless pranks soon escalate into real hazards, including an exploding deep fat fryer. Then one of the judges dies after taking a bite of Poppy’s limoncello cannoli, making her one of the prime suspects . . .
Forty-odd-year-old, pastry chef, Poppy, the protagonist, lives with her elderly Aunt Ginny and Figaro, her mischievous cat. I found Poppy and many of the other characters very funny and likeable, so much so that I felt as though I would like to spend some time in their company myself! As someone who has read several cozies, Poppy’s Aunt Ginny has become one of my favourite cozy characters. She provided plenty of humour in this book from her choice of outlandish outfits to her zaniness and zest for life. I couldn’t help but adore her and look forward to her mischievous antics.
I liked that the opening chapters drew me into the story and captured my attention immediately. Although I had to wait a while before an actual murder took place, there was never a dull moment with such a lot going on. The mystery itself was well thought out with plenty of twists and turns as I puzzled over the clues to discover the perpetrator.
The book had a natural, steady pace, and even though the murder occurred towards the end of the first half of the book I was kept guessing until the surprising reveal. Delightful and entertaining “Restaurant Weeks Are Murder” is a highly recommended, quick, light read for all cozy mystery fans.
{Thank you to #NetGalley and Kensington Books for the free copy of this novel and for giving me the opportunity to provide an honest review.}
I haven’t read these other books in this series yet, however, I don’t think that this spoilt my enjoyment of this novel. That said, there is nothing more exciting than picking up a book which is the first in a new series.
Poppy McAllister is opening a new Bed & Breakfast in Cape May, New Jersey, but working in a professional kitchen has always been her passion. Now she’s realising her dream, at least briefly, as she is teaming up with her former fiancée Tim and his partner, Gigi, during a high-profile Restaurant Week challenge. Poppy’s speciality is pastries and if anyone can make glorious gluten-free goodies, it’s Poppy.
As it might be expected, things start to go badly wrong very quickly, especially when some ingredients get switched and Tim is accused of sabotage. Relatively harmless pranks soon escalate into real hazards, including an exploding deep fat fryer. Then one of the judges dies after taking a bite of Poppy’s limoncello cannoli, making her one of the prime suspects . . .
Forty-odd-year-old, pastry chef, Poppy, the protagonist, lives with her elderly Aunt Ginny and Figaro, her mischievous cat. I found Poppy and many of the other characters very funny and likeable, so much so that I felt as though I would like to spend some time in their company myself! As someone who has read several cozies, Poppy’s Aunt Ginny has become one of my favourite cozy characters. She provided plenty of humour in this book from her choice of outlandish outfits to her zaniness and zest for life. I couldn’t help but adore her and look forward to her mischievous antics.
I liked that the opening chapters drew me into the story and captured my attention immediately. Although I had to wait a while before an actual murder took place, there was never a dull moment with such a lot going on. The mystery itself was well thought out with plenty of twists and turns as I puzzled over the clues to discover the perpetrator.
The book had a natural, steady pace, and even though the murder occurred towards the end of the first half of the book I was kept guessing until the surprising reveal. Delightful and entertaining “Restaurant Weeks Are Murder” is a highly recommended, quick, light read for all cozy mystery fans.
{Thank you to #NetGalley and Kensington Books for the free copy of this novel and for giving me the opportunity to provide an honest review.}
Ross (3282 KP) rated Reign of Madness in Books
Nov 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 30, 2018)
Good but needlessly long and slow
Following on from Free the Darkness, which ended somewhat abruptly ("we're going on an adventure, the end"), Reign of Madness sees Rezkin "Marty Stu" travelling to the King's Tournament with a group of fellow travellers. As before, his motives are somewhat hidden or confused but largely he is looking for answers to what his purpose was and why he had to kill all of his boyhood mentors.
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Splintered (Splintered, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b>I loved <i>Splintered</i>, even though this is such a peculiar book.</b>
As the descendant of Lewis Carroll's inspiration for <i>Alices Adventures in Wonderland</i>, Alyssa and all the females after Alice Liddell can hear the thoughts of plants and animals. In an attempt to stop the whispers, Alyssa collects bugs and plants and uses them for her art. She keeps it hidden from those around her, but deep down she knows that she'll eventually be in an asylum like her mother. To fix the madness running in her family, Alyssa has to journey down the rabbit hole Alice went and fix her mistakes.
<i>Splintered</i> is quite phenomenal – <b>the writing is extremely vivid</b> and doesn't stray too far from the original classic while the story is being set up. After the story is set up, Howard sends us down the rabbit hole with <b>a dark and grotesque twist of the original classic.</b> We have skeletal rabbits, carnivorous plants, a ghost from Alice's past that's out for vengeance, and other dark creatures that <b>makes Wonderland a complete irony of its name.</b>
But... but... <b>there's a love triangle.</b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vCNbLv8rQAU/VcN_9G7BWAI/AAAAAAAAE0k/XoASwOo_DEA/s1600/giphy.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/08/giphy-2.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></a></div>
<b>Jeb and Morpheus both have a history with Alyssa</b> – Morpheus just has a past with her in dreams while Jeb has a history with her in flesh and blood. None of them are absolute strangers to Alyssa. <b>They're both possessive and over-protective. They antagonize each other, have a few brawls here and there</b> throughout the story. By the end, <b>Alyssa chooses a side, but we might as well be back at square one</b> when Howard brings us back to the dark makings of Wonderland again in the sequel. There is no way Jeb and Morpheus won't be at each other's throats again.
I like neither of them. I don't like Jeb, I don't like Morpheus. I don't care they're hot – I just don't like them. I feel indifferent towards them and it could go on either a good route or bad route. Enough said on this love triangle.
<b>Simply put, I loved every aspect of <i>Splintered</i> and the dark adventure Howard takes us down the rabbit hole.</b> I just don't like the candidates of this love triangle.
Methinks Tim Burton and other horror directors doth approve of this retelling.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
As the descendant of Lewis Carroll's inspiration for <i>Alices Adventures in Wonderland</i>, Alyssa and all the females after Alice Liddell can hear the thoughts of plants and animals. In an attempt to stop the whispers, Alyssa collects bugs and plants and uses them for her art. She keeps it hidden from those around her, but deep down she knows that she'll eventually be in an asylum like her mother. To fix the madness running in her family, Alyssa has to journey down the rabbit hole Alice went and fix her mistakes.
<i>Splintered</i> is quite phenomenal – <b>the writing is extremely vivid</b> and doesn't stray too far from the original classic while the story is being set up. After the story is set up, Howard sends us down the rabbit hole with <b>a dark and grotesque twist of the original classic.</b> We have skeletal rabbits, carnivorous plants, a ghost from Alice's past that's out for vengeance, and other dark creatures that <b>makes Wonderland a complete irony of its name.</b>
But... but... <b>there's a love triangle.</b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vCNbLv8rQAU/VcN_9G7BWAI/AAAAAAAAE0k/XoASwOo_DEA/s1600/giphy.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/08/giphy-2.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></a></div>
<b>Jeb and Morpheus both have a history with Alyssa</b> – Morpheus just has a past with her in dreams while Jeb has a history with her in flesh and blood. None of them are absolute strangers to Alyssa. <b>They're both possessive and over-protective. They antagonize each other, have a few brawls here and there</b> throughout the story. By the end, <b>Alyssa chooses a side, but we might as well be back at square one</b> when Howard brings us back to the dark makings of Wonderland again in the sequel. There is no way Jeb and Morpheus won't be at each other's throats again.
I like neither of them. I don't like Jeb, I don't like Morpheus. I don't care they're hot – I just don't like them. I feel indifferent towards them and it could go on either a good route or bad route. Enough said on this love triangle.
<b>Simply put, I loved every aspect of <i>Splintered</i> and the dark adventure Howard takes us down the rabbit hole.</b> I just don't like the candidates of this love triangle.
Methinks Tim Burton and other horror directors doth approve of this retelling.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Horse Girl (2020) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
Pacing Was One Problem of Many
In Horse Girl, Sarah (Alison Brie) finds herself confusing her dreams with reality as her visions start to become more and more real.
Acting: 10
I didn’t love this movie, but I did love Brie’s performance as Sarah. It’s an earnest performance and she did extremely well within the confines of the script she was given. With a solid supporting cast in tow, I enjoyed the acting all the way around.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 2
I wasn’t in love with Sarah’s character or at least how she was portrayed. Without giving away any of the story, I’ll just say I think her arc could have been delved into a bit more. In Horse Girl, it felt like the main issue was being skirted more than anything. I also felt like the other characters were just around for the sake of being fillers.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is shot well from a visual standpoint. I love how the dreams blend seamlessly into reality and you have a hard time discerning what’s what at times. It’s those kind of things that keep you guessing and almost manage to salvage the movie.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 3
If I’m being honest, I was mostly bored throughout the movie. Sure there were a couple of moments that piqued my interest, but I think the movie showed it’s hand too fast by presenting the issue, then not really doing much to resolve the issue. I understand the theme of what the movie is supposed to represent, but where is the light in all of it? It felt like a movie descending more and more into darkness with no hope of getting out.
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Slow-moving to the point of being painful at times. I remember repeatedly checking the time hoping that things would eventually pick up. I found myself chasing storylines in my head that didn’t even matter. It felt slower overall because I continued to question the direction.
Plot: 3
The attempt to tackle this type of story could have been handled a lot better. If I compare it to another movie that comes to mind, you will automatically know what Horse Girl is about, but I will say said movie handles the topic like night and day compared to this movie. It lacked any kind of cohesiveness to keep me interested.
Resolution: 3
Ends worse than it started. It drained me of hope which is the complete opposite of a movie’s aim. It’s a shame as there were so many different directions they could have chosen.
Overall: 48
About fifteen minutes in, this movie starts to go downhill for me and never really rebounds. Instead, what happens next is a descent into madness that is neither fun nor hopeful.
Acting: 10
I didn’t love this movie, but I did love Brie’s performance as Sarah. It’s an earnest performance and she did extremely well within the confines of the script she was given. With a solid supporting cast in tow, I enjoyed the acting all the way around.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 2
I wasn’t in love with Sarah’s character or at least how she was portrayed. Without giving away any of the story, I’ll just say I think her arc could have been delved into a bit more. In Horse Girl, it felt like the main issue was being skirted more than anything. I also felt like the other characters were just around for the sake of being fillers.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is shot well from a visual standpoint. I love how the dreams blend seamlessly into reality and you have a hard time discerning what’s what at times. It’s those kind of things that keep you guessing and almost manage to salvage the movie.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 3
If I’m being honest, I was mostly bored throughout the movie. Sure there were a couple of moments that piqued my interest, but I think the movie showed it’s hand too fast by presenting the issue, then not really doing much to resolve the issue. I understand the theme of what the movie is supposed to represent, but where is the light in all of it? It felt like a movie descending more and more into darkness with no hope of getting out.
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Slow-moving to the point of being painful at times. I remember repeatedly checking the time hoping that things would eventually pick up. I found myself chasing storylines in my head that didn’t even matter. It felt slower overall because I continued to question the direction.
Plot: 3
The attempt to tackle this type of story could have been handled a lot better. If I compare it to another movie that comes to mind, you will automatically know what Horse Girl is about, but I will say said movie handles the topic like night and day compared to this movie. It lacked any kind of cohesiveness to keep me interested.
Resolution: 3
Ends worse than it started. It drained me of hope which is the complete opposite of a movie’s aim. It’s a shame as there were so many different directions they could have chosen.
Overall: 48
About fifteen minutes in, this movie starts to go downhill for me and never really rebounds. Instead, what happens next is a descent into madness that is neither fun nor hopeful.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Side Effects (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has been toying with the notion of retirement for a couple of years now, and has said that “Side Effects” will be his final film. I certainly hope not.
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
The Alex Crow
Book
From the critically acclaimed author of cult teen novel Grasshopper Jungle, Andrew Smith, comes a...
Lying in Wait
7.7
Rate It
Book
Sunday Times Top 10 Bestseller! Featured in the Richard and Judy Spring 2017 Book Club 'Gone Girl...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Killers Anonymous (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2021
A killers' support group? Ooooooh, this could be fun.
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Color out of Space Is a film based on a H.P. Lovecraft staring Nicholas Cage so you know it's going to be weird.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.