Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Cop Out (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
For Detectives Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis), and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan), life on the beat is about to become very dangerous and complex. In the new movie “Cop Out” the two buddies find themselves at odds with their supervisor after a case goes horribly wrong and looking at a thirty day unpaid suspension.
This is a disaster for Jimmy as his only daughter is about to get married and he needs the money to pay for the wedding to avoid his ego having to absorb the insult of having his former wives new husband pick up the tab.
Undaunted Jimmy decides to sell a prized baseball card to cover the 48K wedding tab, and looks forward to being able to make his daughters dream wedding a reality. Things do not go as planned as Jimmy has his card stolen which forces Paul and Jimmy to take drastic actions to recover it.
The duo track down the card thief (Seann William Scott), and learn that he traded the card to a local drug lord who is as passionate about baseball as he is deadly to all those who stand in his way.
Jimmy and Paul soon realize that they must deal with the enemy in an effort to retrieve the card as his request that they find his stolen Mercedes seems a small price to pay for the safe return of the prized card.
Upon locating the Mercedes, Jimmy and Paul learn that a much larger game is afoot and find themselves on the run for goons and their fellow cops as they try to keep a key witness safe and retrieve the card.
The film has some very funny moments and Director Kevin Smith gets some good laughs from the material but the film suffers from a disjointed plot and some glaring holes which requires some major leaps of faith from the audience.
For example, we are expected to believe that a couple of thieves would steal a car and sell it but nowhere in the process would the thieves or new owner bother to look in the trunk much less hear the noises coming from within.
We are given a few bits about Jimmy and Paul, such as Paul’s paranoia regarding his wife and his inability to question a suspect, but the duo are so thinly developed the seem to have been crafted from the Buddy Cop film 101 guide.
Smith has always been a favorite of mine as I have always liked the way he blends biting satire and humor with interesting characters and conversations.
Action does not seem to yet be an area of comfort for Smith as he does pull off the action sequences in the film but they seem very restrained for what audiences have come to expect from today’s action films.
This time out Smith was limited to directing and editing and the film seems to be badly in need of his writing abilities.
Given his past issues with trying to do films for a big studio, it was a surprise to me that Smith did the film which was originally entitled “The Two Dicks”.
Thankfully his skilled handling of the cast and humor is what tips the scales in the films favor making “Cop Out” a flawed but at times very funny film.
This is a disaster for Jimmy as his only daughter is about to get married and he needs the money to pay for the wedding to avoid his ego having to absorb the insult of having his former wives new husband pick up the tab.
Undaunted Jimmy decides to sell a prized baseball card to cover the 48K wedding tab, and looks forward to being able to make his daughters dream wedding a reality. Things do not go as planned as Jimmy has his card stolen which forces Paul and Jimmy to take drastic actions to recover it.
The duo track down the card thief (Seann William Scott), and learn that he traded the card to a local drug lord who is as passionate about baseball as he is deadly to all those who stand in his way.
Jimmy and Paul soon realize that they must deal with the enemy in an effort to retrieve the card as his request that they find his stolen Mercedes seems a small price to pay for the safe return of the prized card.
Upon locating the Mercedes, Jimmy and Paul learn that a much larger game is afoot and find themselves on the run for goons and their fellow cops as they try to keep a key witness safe and retrieve the card.
The film has some very funny moments and Director Kevin Smith gets some good laughs from the material but the film suffers from a disjointed plot and some glaring holes which requires some major leaps of faith from the audience.
For example, we are expected to believe that a couple of thieves would steal a car and sell it but nowhere in the process would the thieves or new owner bother to look in the trunk much less hear the noises coming from within.
We are given a few bits about Jimmy and Paul, such as Paul’s paranoia regarding his wife and his inability to question a suspect, but the duo are so thinly developed the seem to have been crafted from the Buddy Cop film 101 guide.
Smith has always been a favorite of mine as I have always liked the way he blends biting satire and humor with interesting characters and conversations.
Action does not seem to yet be an area of comfort for Smith as he does pull off the action sequences in the film but they seem very restrained for what audiences have come to expect from today’s action films.
This time out Smith was limited to directing and editing and the film seems to be badly in need of his writing abilities.
Given his past issues with trying to do films for a big studio, it was a surprise to me that Smith did the film which was originally entitled “The Two Dicks”.
Thankfully his skilled handling of the cast and humor is what tips the scales in the films favor making “Cop Out” a flawed but at times very funny film.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated My Name is Leon in Books
Jul 2, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Shortlisted for the Costa First Novel Award, My Name is Leon (2016) by Kit De Waal is a heart tugging, sad yet hopeful book. Set in England the late 1970's - early 1980's, Leon and his baby brother Jake are living with single mother Carol. Leon's father is in prison and Jakes father is married and wants nothing to do with Carol or the child. Carol is terribly lonely and desperately unhappy. Struggling with deep depression, the mother's fragile state leaves her unable to care for her children :
Leon has begun to notice things what make his mum cry: when Jake makes a lot of noise; when she hasn't got any money; when she comes back from the phone box; when Leon asks too many questions; and when she's staring at Jake, (p.12).
After Carol takes to her bed, Leon, at just nine years old, takes on the role of carer and parent. Through the eyes of this young boy, the reader watches his world fall apart, fragment by fragment.
Eventually the boys are taken into care and find solace in the home of Maureen, an experienced foster carer with a deep love for both cakes and children. Maureen is a lovable character who feels a deep affinity for Leon, even though Leon is highly suspicious of anyone in the care system, but when Jake is adopted, it is Maureen who picks up the pieces. It is perhaps her honesty rather than her role as parent that soothes Leon in his most difficult times:
'Now listen carefully because I want you to understand something and I don't say this to all the children because it's not always true but with you it's true so you have to believe it. And when you believe it you will stop grinding your teeth [...] You will be all right, Leon.' (p.55-56).
But when Maureen is taken into hospital, Leon is left with Maureen's sister Sylvia, a less motherly role model than Maureen but with a desire to please her sister none the less. Their relationship is strained and often uncomfortable, but soon enough Leon finds comfort in a new friend, Tufty. Tufty is a young man who looks after a plot in his father's allotment. The man and the boy form a friendship that grows alongside the seeds that they plant in the garden, so when they both find themselves in the midst of the Birmingham riots, they naturally come together to save each other.
This is a coming of age story unlike any other, it is not a happy ever after but hope for a child and his future.
I love this novel, it is clearly written with believable characters and honest emotions. At the start of the novel I was concerned about the character's point of view - a third person limited perspective from the child's perspective - but it is cleverly done. While the reader gathers glimpses of emotions from inside Leon's head, there is still enough distance to feel the tug of the story from the outside. It is as if the reader is holding the child's hand and experiencing his life with him as it unfolds. Brilliantly done and brilliantly written. Go Leon.
Leon has begun to notice things what make his mum cry: when Jake makes a lot of noise; when she hasn't got any money; when she comes back from the phone box; when Leon asks too many questions; and when she's staring at Jake, (p.12).
After Carol takes to her bed, Leon, at just nine years old, takes on the role of carer and parent. Through the eyes of this young boy, the reader watches his world fall apart, fragment by fragment.
Eventually the boys are taken into care and find solace in the home of Maureen, an experienced foster carer with a deep love for both cakes and children. Maureen is a lovable character who feels a deep affinity for Leon, even though Leon is highly suspicious of anyone in the care system, but when Jake is adopted, it is Maureen who picks up the pieces. It is perhaps her honesty rather than her role as parent that soothes Leon in his most difficult times:
'Now listen carefully because I want you to understand something and I don't say this to all the children because it's not always true but with you it's true so you have to believe it. And when you believe it you will stop grinding your teeth [...] You will be all right, Leon.' (p.55-56).
But when Maureen is taken into hospital, Leon is left with Maureen's sister Sylvia, a less motherly role model than Maureen but with a desire to please her sister none the less. Their relationship is strained and often uncomfortable, but soon enough Leon finds comfort in a new friend, Tufty. Tufty is a young man who looks after a plot in his father's allotment. The man and the boy form a friendship that grows alongside the seeds that they plant in the garden, so when they both find themselves in the midst of the Birmingham riots, they naturally come together to save each other.
This is a coming of age story unlike any other, it is not a happy ever after but hope for a child and his future.
I love this novel, it is clearly written with believable characters and honest emotions. At the start of the novel I was concerned about the character's point of view - a third person limited perspective from the child's perspective - but it is cleverly done. While the reader gathers glimpses of emotions from inside Leon's head, there is still enough distance to feel the tug of the story from the outside. It is as if the reader is holding the child's hand and experiencing his life with him as it unfolds. Brilliantly done and brilliantly written. Go Leon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lucky Grandma (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The synopsis for this sounded okay but I can't say I was blown away. I popped this in my third tier films to watch at the London Film Festival, the "I'll try and see this if there's a gap" films. There was a gap so this ended up being my first film of the festival.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Gnaw (2017) in Movies
Dec 3, 2019
Verdict: Slow Build, Great Ending
Story: Gnaw starts when Jennifer Conrad (Mitchell) escapes from her abusive husband, to start a new life in a small apartment complex, where the handyman Terry (Gass) takes her under his wing, trying to make her feel welcome. When one of the neighbours spends hours crying at night before killing herself.
Jennifer must deal with her ex-husband Boyd (Johnson) finding her, just as she gets a pet turtle and more painfully an uncomfortable bite, which just seems to keep getting worse.
Thoughts on Gnaw
Characters – Jennifer has been struck in an abusive relationship which she has gotten the courage to leave behind her, this does leave her in a small apartment complex where she must try to start a new life. Things seem positive, when she bumps into an old friend who wants to help her get a job, only things start going badly after her neighbour’s suicide and bites which appear on her skin, with no explanation behind them. She must face her own past, deal with a problem before moving on with her own life. Terry Lumley is the friendly handyman that offers Jennifer all the support while staying the apartments. Boyd is the abusive ex-husband and police officers, making it harder for Jennifer to escape him, he has always put her down and wants to keep his control over her. Claudette runs the apartments she doesn’t get on with anybody, just wants to see money coming in.
Performances – Penelope Mitchell in the leading role is the star of the show here, being able to show the pain she is running from and the hope she is fighting for. Kyle Gass is the next best thing in the film, where he does bring moments of laughter in his kind natured character. The rest of the cast do a solid job without being tested with what they have to do.
Story – The story here follows an abuse victim that is trying to escape her own life’s pain only to find herself dealing with the latest problem which has come her way in the form of a bite. This story does manage to show us how difficult getting out of an abusive relationship can be for the victim, where starting a new life can take more time than people believe, this side of the story is the strongest part because it shows the real horrors of Jennifer’s life. When we get into the mystery about the bites, it does go on the routine way, until we learn the truth, which makes both sides of the story get connected nicely.
Horror – The horror side of the film mixes the reality of being abused by a partner with the unknown of mysterious bites being found on the body and why they are there.
Settings – Most of the film remains in the hotel complex which is a place where people go to start life again.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects we see what happens with the bites getting worse and the revel of what is behind it.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown in the room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The job interview.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice slow build horror that tries to reflect the ideas of the horror being in real life rather than needing supernatural elements.
Overall: Horror that tests the reality of life.
Story: Gnaw starts when Jennifer Conrad (Mitchell) escapes from her abusive husband, to start a new life in a small apartment complex, where the handyman Terry (Gass) takes her under his wing, trying to make her feel welcome. When one of the neighbours spends hours crying at night before killing herself.
Jennifer must deal with her ex-husband Boyd (Johnson) finding her, just as she gets a pet turtle and more painfully an uncomfortable bite, which just seems to keep getting worse.
Thoughts on Gnaw
Characters – Jennifer has been struck in an abusive relationship which she has gotten the courage to leave behind her, this does leave her in a small apartment complex where she must try to start a new life. Things seem positive, when she bumps into an old friend who wants to help her get a job, only things start going badly after her neighbour’s suicide and bites which appear on her skin, with no explanation behind them. She must face her own past, deal with a problem before moving on with her own life. Terry Lumley is the friendly handyman that offers Jennifer all the support while staying the apartments. Boyd is the abusive ex-husband and police officers, making it harder for Jennifer to escape him, he has always put her down and wants to keep his control over her. Claudette runs the apartments she doesn’t get on with anybody, just wants to see money coming in.
Performances – Penelope Mitchell in the leading role is the star of the show here, being able to show the pain she is running from and the hope she is fighting for. Kyle Gass is the next best thing in the film, where he does bring moments of laughter in his kind natured character. The rest of the cast do a solid job without being tested with what they have to do.
Story – The story here follows an abuse victim that is trying to escape her own life’s pain only to find herself dealing with the latest problem which has come her way in the form of a bite. This story does manage to show us how difficult getting out of an abusive relationship can be for the victim, where starting a new life can take more time than people believe, this side of the story is the strongest part because it shows the real horrors of Jennifer’s life. When we get into the mystery about the bites, it does go on the routine way, until we learn the truth, which makes both sides of the story get connected nicely.
Horror – The horror side of the film mixes the reality of being abused by a partner with the unknown of mysterious bites being found on the body and why they are there.
Settings – Most of the film remains in the hotel complex which is a place where people go to start life again.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects we see what happens with the bites getting worse and the revel of what is behind it.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown in the room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The job interview.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice slow build horror that tries to reflect the ideas of the horror being in real life rather than needing supernatural elements.
Overall: Horror that tests the reality of life.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Seeker (Seeker, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
I was honestly excited to read Arwen Elys Dayton's <i>Seeker</i>, as the idea seemed very promising and the book is set in Scotland and Hong Kong – a rarity in books. Simply put, I thought this would actually go quite well.
Let's face it: Dayton does have talent. The setting of Scotland is richly detailed to the point where it's as though you're there; the book is action-packed, page-turning (in the first part), and intriguing; and the characters seem to be <i>extremely</i> well-developed.
But here's the conclusion: <i>Seeker</i> had a lot of potential to be an amazing book, but somehow, in the execution of the book, something must have exploded and went horribly wrong (because I wouldn't have DNF it if it were THAT good).
The first chapter went pretty well, aside from the hefty load of information about the characters, the setting, and whatnot. Personally I don't mind it that much as long as I don't feel like I'm reading a textbook and reading unnecessary information like a character's weight (unless it pertains to the story).
The second chapter though... I had thoughts of DNFing because throughout the most of the chapter (if not the entire chapter), John wouldn't stop yapping about how he's had a crush on Quin since he first arrived on the Kincaid estate in Scotland, and his desire for her, blah blah blah – all in all, John is quite cringe-cheesy in the romance department. I could have sworn at one point there was going to be a scene that I would feel very awkward reading about and would absolutely hightail out of the book with my tail between my legs as soon it happened.
<blockquote>But she and John had daydreamed about camping trips across the river, or rooms in an inn somewhere, someday, when they would finally be able to give themselves to each other.</blockquote>
And here's the nutshell version of what happens later: John fails, he gets kicked out of training by Briac Kincaid, there's a centuries old power struggle between "houses." As a result, John decides to attack the Kincaid estate just to get an athame and he and Quin aren't even allies when that happens. All of the characters go on their separate ways or died in the process of the attack and we don't hear any of them make a peep aside from the love triangle (Quin, John, and Shinobu) since forever. Then, when Quin gets to Hong Kong, she chooses to lose all of her memories and doesn't remember anything from the last fifteen to sixteen years, Shinobu makes a living by searching for artifacts in Victoria Harbor with a dude named Brian and they spend their money from that on "drug bars" and looking like gangsters. Then John makes an appearance in Hong Kong and makes an attempt to win Quin's heart back after shooting her in the chest and nearly killing her during the attack in Scotland.
Tell me that isn't a bit questionable, because between the end of Part 1, the Interlude and Part 2, my brain got horribly scrambled and I became overly puzzled.
Simply put, <i>Seeker</i> didn't turn out well – it crashed and burned.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-seeker-by-arwen-elys-dayton/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I was honestly excited to read Arwen Elys Dayton's <i>Seeker</i>, as the idea seemed very promising and the book is set in Scotland and Hong Kong – a rarity in books. Simply put, I thought this would actually go quite well.
Let's face it: Dayton does have talent. The setting of Scotland is richly detailed to the point where it's as though you're there; the book is action-packed, page-turning (in the first part), and intriguing; and the characters seem to be <i>extremely</i> well-developed.
But here's the conclusion: <i>Seeker</i> had a lot of potential to be an amazing book, but somehow, in the execution of the book, something must have exploded and went horribly wrong (because I wouldn't have DNF it if it were THAT good).
The first chapter went pretty well, aside from the hefty load of information about the characters, the setting, and whatnot. Personally I don't mind it that much as long as I don't feel like I'm reading a textbook and reading unnecessary information like a character's weight (unless it pertains to the story).
The second chapter though... I had thoughts of DNFing because throughout the most of the chapter (if not the entire chapter), John wouldn't stop yapping about how he's had a crush on Quin since he first arrived on the Kincaid estate in Scotland, and his desire for her, blah blah blah – all in all, John is quite cringe-cheesy in the romance department. I could have sworn at one point there was going to be a scene that I would feel very awkward reading about and would absolutely hightail out of the book with my tail between my legs as soon it happened.
<blockquote>But she and John had daydreamed about camping trips across the river, or rooms in an inn somewhere, someday, when they would finally be able to give themselves to each other.</blockquote>
And here's the nutshell version of what happens later: John fails, he gets kicked out of training by Briac Kincaid, there's a centuries old power struggle between "houses." As a result, John decides to attack the Kincaid estate just to get an athame and he and Quin aren't even allies when that happens. All of the characters go on their separate ways or died in the process of the attack and we don't hear any of them make a peep aside from the love triangle (Quin, John, and Shinobu) since forever. Then, when Quin gets to Hong Kong, she chooses to lose all of her memories and doesn't remember anything from the last fifteen to sixteen years, Shinobu makes a living by searching for artifacts in Victoria Harbor with a dude named Brian and they spend their money from that on "drug bars" and looking like gangsters. Then John makes an appearance in Hong Kong and makes an attempt to win Quin's heart back after shooting her in the chest and nearly killing her during the attack in Scotland.
Tell me that isn't a bit questionable, because between the end of Part 1, the Interlude and Part 2, my brain got horribly scrambled and I became overly puzzled.
Simply put, <i>Seeker</i> didn't turn out well – it crashed and burned.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-seeker-by-arwen-elys-dayton/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated I Will Find You in Books
Jan 9, 2020
I Will Find You by John M. Taylor is a painfully beautiful story of one boys love for his mother and his journey to be reunited with her. He travels from England to Australia and spends some time in the outback as well as aboard ships before returning home.
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
Never meet your heroes is the succinct tag line of this Amazon original series, dealing with the notion that all superheroes are morally good… but what if they weren’t…?
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
JT (287 KP) rated Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If it’s not broke, then don’t fix it. Seems a pretty good mantra and one that new directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman have stuck to.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
