Search
Search results
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Spenser Confidential (2020) in Movies
Mar 16, 2020
Good cop Bad cop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Spenser Confidential is a hard hitting action comedy, loosely based on the novel Wonderland by Ace Atkins, and stars Mark Wahlberg, Winston Duke, Alan Arkin, Iliza Shlesinger, Bokeem Woodbine, Donald Cerrone, Marc Maron, and Austin Post.
After a stretch in prison for a violent attack on another officer, Spenser is released, that night the officer who he did time for attacking is murdered, which throws Spensers name into the fire.
When a second officer from his former precinct is murdered, Spenser teams up with his no-nonsense roommate, Hawk, to take down criminals and uncover the truth before it's too late.
A great movie-
even though the story has had very similar ones berfore it, it's a nice throwback to them whilst injecting a dose of witt to it.
After a stretch in prison for a violent attack on another officer, Spenser is released, that night the officer who he did time for attacking is murdered, which throws Spensers name into the fire.
When a second officer from his former precinct is murdered, Spenser teams up with his no-nonsense roommate, Hawk, to take down criminals and uncover the truth before it's too late.
A great movie-
even though the story has had very similar ones berfore it, it's a nice throwback to them whilst injecting a dose of witt to it.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Tigers Ambush (Kit Davenport #3) in Books
Feb 26, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're reading this, you've probably already read my first two installments, and know exactly how deep into trouble I've got myself.
But you totally don’t care about what’s happening in this blurb because let’s be honest here… It was going to be a bunch of vague questions and hints that would really give away nothing, but leave you scratching your heads.
So, let's call a spade a spade and pretend this was an awesome blurb. Yeah?
Oh also, I'm Kit Davenport and this is going to leave a mark...
Another brilliant book in this series I think it's the best one yet! Finally we see some real power from these gorgeous men! I absolutely love Austin I think he's been my favourite from the start and I love how he's developed in this book. I read quite a few different series and in some I find the sex scenes a big over played but not in this series it's so well written. I actually really enjoy Kits character too. I'm excited to see where these characters are going! Also I almost cheered outloud at Mr Grey's demise!!
I think I need an Austin Tiger!
But you totally don’t care about what’s happening in this blurb because let’s be honest here… It was going to be a bunch of vague questions and hints that would really give away nothing, but leave you scratching your heads.
So, let's call a spade a spade and pretend this was an awesome blurb. Yeah?
Oh also, I'm Kit Davenport and this is going to leave a mark...
Another brilliant book in this series I think it's the best one yet! Finally we see some real power from these gorgeous men! I absolutely love Austin I think he's been my favourite from the start and I love how he's developed in this book. I read quite a few different series and in some I find the sex scenes a big over played but not in this series it's so well written. I actually really enjoy Kits character too. I'm excited to see where these characters are going! Also I almost cheered outloud at Mr Grey's demise!!
I think I need an Austin Tiger!
Erika (17788 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 23, 2018
So, i haven't read the book this is based off of, but I did just start it yesterday. I've also seen this movie twice now (thanks moviepass).
I really liked the film, it was heavy on the nostalgia, which I didn't mind at all. I don't think another director could have directed this film, Spielberg's direction was fantastic.
The cast was my fantastic, I completely didn't realize Halliday was Mark Rylance from Dunkirk. I'm also glad Simon Pegg ended up in the movie, because you can't really have this nerdy of a movie without him.
Side note: I didn't know why Drafthouse was promoting so much for this movie until I read that the author lives here in Austin.
My opinion may change after I read the book, but for now, it's a 9.
I really liked the film, it was heavy on the nostalgia, which I didn't mind at all. I don't think another director could have directed this film, Spielberg's direction was fantastic.
The cast was my fantastic, I completely didn't realize Halliday was Mark Rylance from Dunkirk. I'm also glad Simon Pegg ended up in the movie, because you can't really have this nerdy of a movie without him.
Side note: I didn't know why Drafthouse was promoting so much for this movie until I read that the author lives here in Austin.
My opinion may change after I read the book, but for now, it's a 9.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bridge of Spies (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the 1950s the world was locked in the midst of the Cold War where paranoia, mutual distrust, and fear, combined with the threat of nuclear annihilation between the United States and Soviet Union. In “Bridge of Spies” Director Steven Spielberg has once again used history as a basis for a compelling story filled with real characters and emotions.
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
Without a shadow of doubt, The Last Jedi is the most divisive entry in the Star Wars saga. Some people absolutely loved it, others hated it with a deep rooted passion. Personally, I sit somewhere in the middle.
I would be lying if I said that I wasn't a little dissappointed with TLJ. After the fantastic (albeit safe AF) The Force Awakens, the tone of this follow up takes a sharp turn.
A huge focus of TLJ is Luke Skywalker, and his complete disinterest in the Jedi way. I found myself struggling to accept this at times. I almost felt like that although this was an interesting avenue to explore, it didn't fit quite right with the main storyline.
Another issue I took with TLJ is some of the character arcs attributed to a few of the cast. The focal point in this regard is Kylo Ren and Rey, which is fine, but characters set up in TFA ar forced into a backseat role. An example of this is Finn. In TFA, he was interesting, existing as a defective stormtrooper. It felt fresh! Now that he is a fully fledged rebel, he just has nothing to do, and spends most of his screen time bumbling around a really out of place casino planet, a scene which plays out like an extended scene from Austin Powers.
Poe Dameron is similar, here all he seems to do is argue with a new character played by (a completely wasted) Laura Dern. It just all seems a bit loose, and it's unclear where it wants to go at time.
I absolutely respect that Rian Johnson opted to go in a different path, but it misses the mark for me more often than not.
That being said, there is still plenty to like about TLJ. I really enjoy Adam Drivers performance as Kylo Ren once again, and definitely the most engaging character here. The connection between him and Rey is explored a bit more, and it definitely provides some of the films high points, including a thrilling and incredible looking fight scene in the Supreme Leader's throne room.
The action sequences look amazing as they did in TFA, and the whole finale scene set on Crait is incredibly striking and colourful.
As I said, I left the cinema feeling a little disheartened, but I still liked The Last Jedi. It has some high highs, and some frustrating lows, but us Star Wars fans are used to that by now!
I would be lying if I said that I wasn't a little dissappointed with TLJ. After the fantastic (albeit safe AF) The Force Awakens, the tone of this follow up takes a sharp turn.
A huge focus of TLJ is Luke Skywalker, and his complete disinterest in the Jedi way. I found myself struggling to accept this at times. I almost felt like that although this was an interesting avenue to explore, it didn't fit quite right with the main storyline.
Another issue I took with TLJ is some of the character arcs attributed to a few of the cast. The focal point in this regard is Kylo Ren and Rey, which is fine, but characters set up in TFA ar forced into a backseat role. An example of this is Finn. In TFA, he was interesting, existing as a defective stormtrooper. It felt fresh! Now that he is a fully fledged rebel, he just has nothing to do, and spends most of his screen time bumbling around a really out of place casino planet, a scene which plays out like an extended scene from Austin Powers.
Poe Dameron is similar, here all he seems to do is argue with a new character played by (a completely wasted) Laura Dern. It just all seems a bit loose, and it's unclear where it wants to go at time.
I absolutely respect that Rian Johnson opted to go in a different path, but it misses the mark for me more often than not.
That being said, there is still plenty to like about TLJ. I really enjoy Adam Drivers performance as Kylo Ren once again, and definitely the most engaging character here. The connection between him and Rey is explored a bit more, and it definitely provides some of the films high points, including a thrilling and incredible looking fight scene in the Supreme Leader's throne room.
The action sequences look amazing as they did in TFA, and the whole finale scene set on Crait is incredibly striking and colourful.
As I said, I left the cinema feeling a little disheartened, but I still liked The Last Jedi. It has some high highs, and some frustrating lows, but us Star Wars fans are used to that by now!
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Luke (Learning to Love #3) in Books
Feb 24, 2022
Whatever happens, no matter how bad it gets, the sun ALWAYS rises.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 2 in the Learning To Love series and can be read as a stand alone. I have read book 1, Charles but somehow missed book 2, Sol and now I want to go back and read it! Because I loved Charles, and I'm gutted to missed Sol, not because I NEED to, just because I want to.
Luke is the head master at Glynn Harber and is doing his best to save the school. His friends-with-benefits comes to school to talk about his career path. But Luke needs to end it, and tells Nathan no more casual. Nathan agrees. But Nathan is hiding a lot of pain, and it takes a glance at a business card for everything to come tumbling down around his ears.
I loved Charles, I really did but Luke?? oh my days! Luke broke my heart, he really did. But equally, so did Nathan.
Luke loves Nathan, but he can't do the no strings anymore. Its clear from the start that it was never gonna happen, a clean break, hell, ANY sort of break was not happening, but Luke tries. Its also clear that even though he agrees to the no casual with Luke, that Nathan loves him too, HAS loved him for a long time.
And it's this that broke me. Both men loved each other, even if they didn't admit it to themselves, and were perfect for each other. But neither had been fully truthful with the other, even after their very long friendship/relationship. And when it all comes out, from both Luke and Nathan? Oh I cried, I really did.
And I gotta say, had Nathan been given a voice, I think that would have been too much pain in a single book, I really do. Because, as with Charles, only Luke is given a voice. Ordinarily, I would have said I wanted to hear from Nathan, and at points, I really did. Ordinarily, I would have possibly knocked a mark off for the single point of view. But Nathan delivers some serious romance to Luke in this book, when he talks about what he likes about Luke and I can't take that star off, I really can't.
And then Riley delivers the most devastatingly emotional line, when Luke takes to kids leaving school to the top of the tor. (I'm paraphrasing, cos I didn't highlight it! and I'm getting emotional writing the damn review!)
Whatever happens, no matter how bad it gets, the sun ALWAYS rises.
And THEN?? That bloody epilogue!! OH!!
So now I need Sol, and Riley with have systematically destroyed me, in 3 books. But then, Austin is next and you get glimspes of him here, and he gonna break me too, I just know it!
I can't give it any less than:
5 full and shiny stars
This is book 2 in the Learning To Love series and can be read as a stand alone. I have read book 1, Charles but somehow missed book 2, Sol and now I want to go back and read it! Because I loved Charles, and I'm gutted to missed Sol, not because I NEED to, just because I want to.
Luke is the head master at Glynn Harber and is doing his best to save the school. His friends-with-benefits comes to school to talk about his career path. But Luke needs to end it, and tells Nathan no more casual. Nathan agrees. But Nathan is hiding a lot of pain, and it takes a glance at a business card for everything to come tumbling down around his ears.
I loved Charles, I really did but Luke?? oh my days! Luke broke my heart, he really did. But equally, so did Nathan.
Luke loves Nathan, but he can't do the no strings anymore. Its clear from the start that it was never gonna happen, a clean break, hell, ANY sort of break was not happening, but Luke tries. Its also clear that even though he agrees to the no casual with Luke, that Nathan loves him too, HAS loved him for a long time.
And it's this that broke me. Both men loved each other, even if they didn't admit it to themselves, and were perfect for each other. But neither had been fully truthful with the other, even after their very long friendship/relationship. And when it all comes out, from both Luke and Nathan? Oh I cried, I really did.
And I gotta say, had Nathan been given a voice, I think that would have been too much pain in a single book, I really do. Because, as with Charles, only Luke is given a voice. Ordinarily, I would have said I wanted to hear from Nathan, and at points, I really did. Ordinarily, I would have possibly knocked a mark off for the single point of view. But Nathan delivers some serious romance to Luke in this book, when he talks about what he likes about Luke and I can't take that star off, I really can't.
And then Riley delivers the most devastatingly emotional line, when Luke takes to kids leaving school to the top of the tor. (I'm paraphrasing, cos I didn't highlight it! and I'm getting emotional writing the damn review!)
Whatever happens, no matter how bad it gets, the sun ALWAYS rises.
And THEN?? That bloody epilogue!! OH!!
So now I need Sol, and Riley with have systematically destroyed me, in 3 books. But then, Austin is next and you get glimspes of him here, and he gonna break me too, I just know it!
I can't give it any less than:
5 full and shiny stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
In the early 1980s, author Alvin Schwartz created a book of short horror stories titled Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark that would go on to terrorize a whole generation of curious young readers. Combined with its morbid and ghastly illustrations by artist Stephen Gammell, the book would serve as an introduction to horror for many. Over the next ten years, Schwartz wrote two more books in the Scary Stories series, and now, nearly forty years later, it has finally been adapted into a major motion picture. Produced by Academy Award-winning director Guillermo Del Toro and directed by André Øvredal, the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark film constructs a new narrative around several of the iconic short stories from the book series, and brings them to life to haunt the movie’s teenage characters.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
