Search
Search results
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Soma in Video Games
Jul 13, 2018
Interesting concept and story (3 more)
Good length
Creepy atmosphere
Amazing world
Bad AI (2 more)
Awkward acting and diologue
Slow parts
Great game, a few flaws
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a great game, I loved it but there were a few flaws that knocked the rating down sadly.
First off the concept, story and world were by far the best parts of the game. It lasted me around 10 hours and I wanted to keep coming back to it.
The idea to transfer consciousness to robot has fascinated me for a long time. It's not new, it's been talked about for a long time and this game shows it in a very interesting way.
Basically you have a brain scan. Your creating a digital copy of yourself and that is being transferred into the robot. So it doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 100 years later you will have the brain scan and then wake up in a robot because this version of you is from that moment the brain scan took place (stay with me haha) which means the original "you" could have gone on to live 50 more years for all we know.
It's intriguing but also a scary thought because it does beg the question, is this version actually you? It's a copy so surely it's not you conscious?
So obviously we meet our protagonist, Simon who is suffering a brain injury and goes for a brain scan. He doesnt know what the brain scan is intended for so he is immediately woken up in the far future and feeling very confused and this could have been a very interesting story about him descending into madness and insanity as he begins to realise what he has now become. However this falls flat and when he does find out the truth he is quickly accepting and calm about it all. It wasn't very believable and could have done so much more with it.
There is a 2nd character you meet, Catherine who turns out to be a machine who then gets transfer into your omnitool so you assume will be a constant companion and will talk to you constantly as you walk about. However this is not the case as she only talks when plugged into a console which was too few for my liking. Her acting and diologue also felt too emotionless and wooden which could have been intentional and gradually made her out to be obsessive and manipulative and this would have further showed that if they had her talking as you walked about. But again this was not the case, the game is predictable which was disappointing. The ending was predictable despite a few twists but I still liked it.
The AI was very confusing. I didn't understand what the rules were. Was it attracted to light, movement or sound? It was very unpredictable but thankfully the developer updated the game to add a safe mode which keeps everything the same, and still keeps the creepiness but removes the ability for enemies to harm you which did make the game more enjoyable. Plus trophies still unlock on that mode for those completionests.
Overall game was too good to not play thanks to story and the concept behind it. I loved learning about the world through recordings and terminal. I'd love to learn more in a sequel or prequel but with different characters and location. The atmosphere felt creepy and clostophobic at times. But gameplay was generic. Walk to here, open this door, use this terminal.
I do recommend anyone playing it but the lack of collectibles and multiple endings doesn't give good replayability.
First off the concept, story and world were by far the best parts of the game. It lasted me around 10 hours and I wanted to keep coming back to it.
The idea to transfer consciousness to robot has fascinated me for a long time. It's not new, it's been talked about for a long time and this game shows it in a very interesting way.
Basically you have a brain scan. Your creating a digital copy of yourself and that is being transferred into the robot. So it doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 100 years later you will have the brain scan and then wake up in a robot because this version of you is from that moment the brain scan took place (stay with me haha) which means the original "you" could have gone on to live 50 more years for all we know.
It's intriguing but also a scary thought because it does beg the question, is this version actually you? It's a copy so surely it's not you conscious?
So obviously we meet our protagonist, Simon who is suffering a brain injury and goes for a brain scan. He doesnt know what the brain scan is intended for so he is immediately woken up in the far future and feeling very confused and this could have been a very interesting story about him descending into madness and insanity as he begins to realise what he has now become. However this falls flat and when he does find out the truth he is quickly accepting and calm about it all. It wasn't very believable and could have done so much more with it.
There is a 2nd character you meet, Catherine who turns out to be a machine who then gets transfer into your omnitool so you assume will be a constant companion and will talk to you constantly as you walk about. However this is not the case as she only talks when plugged into a console which was too few for my liking. Her acting and diologue also felt too emotionless and wooden which could have been intentional and gradually made her out to be obsessive and manipulative and this would have further showed that if they had her talking as you walked about. But again this was not the case, the game is predictable which was disappointing. The ending was predictable despite a few twists but I still liked it.
The AI was very confusing. I didn't understand what the rules were. Was it attracted to light, movement or sound? It was very unpredictable but thankfully the developer updated the game to add a safe mode which keeps everything the same, and still keeps the creepiness but removes the ability for enemies to harm you which did make the game more enjoyable. Plus trophies still unlock on that mode for those completionests.
Overall game was too good to not play thanks to story and the concept behind it. I loved learning about the world through recordings and terminal. I'd love to learn more in a sequel or prequel but with different characters and location. The atmosphere felt creepy and clostophobic at times. But gameplay was generic. Walk to here, open this door, use this terminal.
I do recommend anyone playing it but the lack of collectibles and multiple endings doesn't give good replayability.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated The Bachelor Girl's Guide to Murder (Herringford and Watts, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
In a time when women never wore trousers and most definitely did not solve murders...Herringford & Watts break every rule in the book of propriety and pave their own future. The year is 1910. Toronto has seen it's share of progress and changes over the last few years. Yet, a woman's duty is still to marry, keep house and raise a family. Merinda Herringford and Jemima Watts are best friends, flatmates...and...detectives. These women do not fit the mold for a "Proper Lady". However, they are living out their dreams and following their passion. And to that I say, "Brava!" When the Herringford & Watts Detective Agency opens for business, mischief, madness and mayhem follow wherever these two go. When the mystery of the deaths of two Irish girls is brushed over by the police and press, Herringford & Watts step in to solve the case. The Morality Squad is on the prowl looking for an excuse to cart women away in the name of, "Cleaning up the town". Reasons may include, but are not limited to: a hemline too short, being out without an escort and sticking their nose in the wrong people's business. For this reason, Merinda and Jem masquerade as men with bowler hats on a fairly regular basis. This offers them the freedom of movement that would otherwise be denied them as women. Leading them to new depths and new heights. Joining forces with Constable Jasper Forth and Ray DeLuca, a reporter, will this team see that justice is served? Will their adventures take them too far? And will these bachelor girls be the voice for the women who have none?
I can honestly say that by page 10 of the novella (A Singular & Whimsical Problem), I was addicted to Herringford & Watts! From the cover design of the book to the quirky traits of these two women, I will treasure their story for many years to come. Let's talk about the book itself for a minute. There are several different aspects to the layout that intrigued me. First of all, the silhouettes on the cover (aren't they gorgeous), can be found at the beginning of each chapter as well, with artwork. Giving a deeper impression of the era. There are lovely quotes at the beginning of each chapter as well. Throughout the book you will find footnotes. Not referencing history books, but referencing our characters and addressing the reader personally. This dynamic didn't just draw me into the story, oh no, it gobbled me up and left me wandering the streets of Toronto, trying to walk without using my hips...Through these footnotes we learn a lot about all of our characters, without the need of an extra hundred pages, although I wouldn't have complained about that either.
The story is one of the most beautifully crafted books I have ever read. I am a HUGE fan of Sherlock and Murdoch Mysteries. And to have a story similar to those with women playing the lead...Brilliant! While we see the story through the perspective of different characters, it is mainly through Jem's eyes. Throughout their crime solving adventure, we can see the strength and determination of these women to do the right thing. Jem and Ray both look to the Lord for guidance and are comforted and encouraged by His voice and His peace. While God is a puzzle too big to solve for Merinda at this point. If you enjoy a good mystery with a lot of humour and some faith...THIS is the book for you! There are pins and needles that I am sitting on, waiting for the next book to come out!
I can honestly say that by page 10 of the novella (A Singular & Whimsical Problem), I was addicted to Herringford & Watts! From the cover design of the book to the quirky traits of these two women, I will treasure their story for many years to come. Let's talk about the book itself for a minute. There are several different aspects to the layout that intrigued me. First of all, the silhouettes on the cover (aren't they gorgeous), can be found at the beginning of each chapter as well, with artwork. Giving a deeper impression of the era. There are lovely quotes at the beginning of each chapter as well. Throughout the book you will find footnotes. Not referencing history books, but referencing our characters and addressing the reader personally. This dynamic didn't just draw me into the story, oh no, it gobbled me up and left me wandering the streets of Toronto, trying to walk without using my hips...Through these footnotes we learn a lot about all of our characters, without the need of an extra hundred pages, although I wouldn't have complained about that either.
The story is one of the most beautifully crafted books I have ever read. I am a HUGE fan of Sherlock and Murdoch Mysteries. And to have a story similar to those with women playing the lead...Brilliant! While we see the story through the perspective of different characters, it is mainly through Jem's eyes. Throughout their crime solving adventure, we can see the strength and determination of these women to do the right thing. Jem and Ray both look to the Lord for guidance and are comforted and encouraged by His voice and His peace. While God is a puzzle too big to solve for Merinda at this point. If you enjoy a good mystery with a lot of humour and some faith...THIS is the book for you! There are pins and needles that I am sitting on, waiting for the next book to come out!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lodge (2019) in Movies
Mar 14, 2020
The Lodge made my long shortlist for films I wanted to see at the London Film Festival last year and I rounded out the event with this chilling tale.
Mia and Aidan are reluctantly spending time with their step-mom-to-be in a remote cabin for the holidays. Where their father has to leave for work the three of them have to make the best of a bad situation.
A snowstorm sets in and the almost amicable atmosphere they've got starts to change when strange things start happening and the children see a side of Grace they didn't know.
All credit to this film for amazing me right out of the blocks. It hands you such a strong start that it takes your breath away, as hooks go it's a pretty good one and it's well presented.
The story focuses heavily on the mental health of Grace and that's what stopped it from crossing into the horror genre for me. As a decent into madness it does a great job. Grace's attempt at a normal life is hindered by her backstory and the manipulation that moulded her into the person she is, while she might be free of the cult her life still has toxic aspects in it and her inability to truly escape that makes her an easy target. Adding to her woes with paranoia, fear and sadness easily derail her forward progress.
There's a certain point in the film where you work out what is going on, but my mind was telling me I couldn't be right, and looking back on the film I wish I hadn't been. The film throws a few explanations/ideas at you and all could have worked but I think leaving the ending with some uncertainty would have been a much more chilling way to end the story.
Riley Keough as Grace takes most of this film in her stride, the things Grace is being put through are reflected in every scene until she comes full circle, it's a wonderfully strong performance and regardless of my feelings about the outcome of the film it was a great success for her.
Jaeden Martell (Lieberher) playing Aidan and Lia McHugh as Mia both support the story well. Perhaps there was some room for growth but they were consistent throughout until the end of the film, at that point their parts became less believable.
Lastly we've got mum and dad. I would have liked a little more Alicia Silverstone, but as she got the strongest piece of the film I can't be too mad. Richard Armitage as Richard is probably the only role I just shrugged my shoulders at. He's a good actor but I think you could have put one of several different actors in his place and got the same effect. This is not a reflection on Armitage, more on the rather underused nature of the character.
The setting is largely at the lodge in a snowy landscape, it adds a certain bleakness to proceedings, though I'm not sure that it's used all that well. Interactions with it are somewhat cliche and expected. Apart from that there's a strong connection between two of the sets in the film and it gives an extra layer to the mystery but again, it's not great, partly it felt and little abstract and partly the greater meaning for the story. The overall tone of the locations, fit well though and helped develop some of the drama of the piece.
Yes there are flaws in The Lodge but it's still an interesting, and at some points, distressing film. Even with the strong performances from Silverstone and Keough the areas of missed potential can't be overlooked though and I think there really would have been something great in this had it explored some of its possibilities more.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-lodge-movie-review.html
Mia and Aidan are reluctantly spending time with their step-mom-to-be in a remote cabin for the holidays. Where their father has to leave for work the three of them have to make the best of a bad situation.
A snowstorm sets in and the almost amicable atmosphere they've got starts to change when strange things start happening and the children see a side of Grace they didn't know.
All credit to this film for amazing me right out of the blocks. It hands you such a strong start that it takes your breath away, as hooks go it's a pretty good one and it's well presented.
The story focuses heavily on the mental health of Grace and that's what stopped it from crossing into the horror genre for me. As a decent into madness it does a great job. Grace's attempt at a normal life is hindered by her backstory and the manipulation that moulded her into the person she is, while she might be free of the cult her life still has toxic aspects in it and her inability to truly escape that makes her an easy target. Adding to her woes with paranoia, fear and sadness easily derail her forward progress.
There's a certain point in the film where you work out what is going on, but my mind was telling me I couldn't be right, and looking back on the film I wish I hadn't been. The film throws a few explanations/ideas at you and all could have worked but I think leaving the ending with some uncertainty would have been a much more chilling way to end the story.
Riley Keough as Grace takes most of this film in her stride, the things Grace is being put through are reflected in every scene until she comes full circle, it's a wonderfully strong performance and regardless of my feelings about the outcome of the film it was a great success for her.
Jaeden Martell (Lieberher) playing Aidan and Lia McHugh as Mia both support the story well. Perhaps there was some room for growth but they were consistent throughout until the end of the film, at that point their parts became less believable.
Lastly we've got mum and dad. I would have liked a little more Alicia Silverstone, but as she got the strongest piece of the film I can't be too mad. Richard Armitage as Richard is probably the only role I just shrugged my shoulders at. He's a good actor but I think you could have put one of several different actors in his place and got the same effect. This is not a reflection on Armitage, more on the rather underused nature of the character.
The setting is largely at the lodge in a snowy landscape, it adds a certain bleakness to proceedings, though I'm not sure that it's used all that well. Interactions with it are somewhat cliche and expected. Apart from that there's a strong connection between two of the sets in the film and it gives an extra layer to the mystery but again, it's not great, partly it felt and little abstract and partly the greater meaning for the story. The overall tone of the locations, fit well though and helped develop some of the drama of the piece.
Yes there are flaws in The Lodge but it's still an interesting, and at some points, distressing film. Even with the strong performances from Silverstone and Keough the areas of missed potential can't be overlooked though and I think there really would have been something great in this had it explored some of its possibilities more.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-lodge-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Burning Dead (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
So, If you’re on the east coast you’re no doubt experiencing the unusually harsh ‘arctic waves’. If you’re on the west coast you have to deal with the unseasonably warm weather.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
Kitchen Food Court Craze (NEW)
Games, Food & Drink and Stickers
7.0
Rate It
App
Kitchen Food Court Craze: Cooking Simulation is a new free cooking games for kids and girls which...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Relaxing Sounds Of Nature & SPA Music
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
MAKE SURE YOU KNOW: As part of our worldwide promotional efforts, we offer all music from In-App...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Stunning
The king of the Kaiju, Godzilla, has had a very chequered cinematic history. From the classic original Japanese films to Roland Emmerich’s 1998 disaster, the famous beast hasn’t always been given the respect deserved of such an iconic monster.
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/