Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Hadley (567 KP) rated Soul Drinker in Books
Jul 25, 2020
The writing (2 more)
No character development
No ending
One of the classic horror tropes is Heaven versus Hell, angels versus demons, good versus evil (like a boogeyman versus an innocent child, or a killer versus a group of teenagers, or even an evil spirit versus an exorcist) and we always know how it's going to end: good triumphs evil, every time. Some of the most well known films with this trope are Constantine (2005), the Exorcist (1973) and more recently, Stephen King's IT : Chapter 2 (2019).
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lightyear (2022) in Movies
Jun 17, 2022
Visually gorgeous animation (2 more)
Sox
Designs of the insects, robots, and especially Zurg
Too much Star Wars influence (1 more)
Writing is a bit underwhelming
A Visually Gorgeous Nod to Science Fiction
Lightyear has a simple premise that fits it into the Toy Story timeline while also giving the film the freedom to creatively do just about whatever it wants. This on-screen version of Buzz Lightyear is what inspired the toy and this film was Andy’s favorite film.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Wonder Woman: Her Greatest Battles in Books
Aug 21, 2018
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-review-1.png"/>;
This is my first graphic novel, and I did enjoy the art in it! This book contains the greatest battles of Wonder Woman. It is a compilation of seven comic book scenes, all sharing a different battle of Wonder Woman, and a different kind of art.. But even though I enjoyed the art, as a first one, this didn’t make me happy.
The stories are put in this compilation chronologically by when they were made, starting from a scene that was made in 1987, until the last one, which was made in 2013. I will give a brief comment on all of them - in order:
<b>‘’Power Play’’ from Wonder Woman #6 (1987)
<i>Plot & Pencils: George Perez, Script: Len Wein, Inks: Bruce Patterson, Colors: Tatjana Wood, Letters: John Costanza, Cover: George Perez</i></b>
The first story is a scene where Diana is fighting the god of war - Ares. As a first one, it is not the best descriptive piece of information - so for a person that haven’t heard about Wonder Woman before, this one won’t be of any use. I also didn’t quite enjoy the art in this one.
<b><i>‘’And for the first time in his immortal existence, the war-god weeps… for, without those alive to worship him, Ares’ power swiftly wanes…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’In The Forest Of The Night’’ from Wonder Woman #119 (1997)
<i>Story & Art: John Byrne; Colors: Patricia Mulvihill; Cover: Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez</i></b>
In this scene, Diana is on a mission to save officer Michael P. Schorr of the G.C.P.D. from the cheetah that used to be Barbara Minerva. Diana manages to convince Barbara to win the battle with herself and become human again. Even though I didn’t quite enjoy the art - I did enjoy the story itself. It was a great lesson of fighting for who you are within, and winning battles with yourself and not surrendering to anything that might be in your way. We also get to have a little sneak-peak of how Wonder Woman started existing in the first place.
<b><i>‘’Yes, Mike, it is not widely known, but I was not born as mortals are, my mother sculpted a baby from the clay of Themyscira and the Gods themselves breathed life into that clay. ‘’</i></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-cover-4.png"/>;
<b>‘’Stoned: Conclusion’’ from Wonder Woman #210 (2005)
<i>Script: Greg Rucka; Pencils: Drew Johnson; Inks: Ray Snyder; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
This one is a gladiator battle between Wonder Woman and Medusa. I really enjoyed this one, the art was amazing and we even get a few scenes with Circe-witch on it. I love how Wonder Woman is presented to be smart and the sacrifice that she made was very brave. Such a powerful story! Amazing!
<b>‘’Sacrifice: Part four’’ from Wonder Woman #219 (2005)
<i>Scripts: Greg Rucka; Pencils:Rags Morales, David Lopez, Tom Derenick, Georges Jeanty & Karl Kerschl; Inks: Mark Propst, BIT, Dexter Vines, Bob Petrecca & Nelson; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
Superman has been brainwashed and wants to kill Diana. Not much happens apart from Wonder Woman and Superman fighting. I didn’t like this one, only because of one quote that says:
<b><i>‘’You’ll forgive me for saying it, princess, but you look good on your knees…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’A Murder Of Crows: Part Two - Throwdown’’ from Wonder Woman #41 (2010)
<i>Script: Gail Simone; Pencils: Chris Batista & Fernando Dagnino; Inks: Doug Hazlewood & Raul Fernandez; Colors: Brad Anderson; Letters: Travis Lanham; Cover: Aaron Lopresti</i></b>
Even though the beginning features Achilles and Patroclus, after a page or two we don’t see them anymore, and I am standing like… what’s the point in mentioning them in the first place then? This piece of art contains a battle between Power Girl and Wonder Woman, and how Power Girl can never be like Wonder Woman, unless, of course, she has no other choice.
I liked this one, maybe the most, even though the art was just average.
<b>‘’Justice League: Part Three’’ from Justice League #3 (2011)
<i>Script: Geoff Johns; Pencils: Jim Lee; Inks: Scott Williams; Colors: Alex Sinclair, HI-FI & Gabe Ettaeb; Letters: Pat Brosseau; Cover: Jim Lee, Scott Williams & Alex Sinclair</i></b>
This piece of art was different than anything else in this book. We see a lot of famous heroes fight, like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and of course, Wonder Woman. The art is really colourful, which I enjoyed, but the story was confusing. See, it started from the middle of a comic book, and then ended unfinished. It only covered the part where Wonder Woman appears, but it confused me and I didn’t enjoy the story as much. Again, I didn’t like the way how they express themselves to a woman. They see Wonder Woman and they call dibs on her. Really?
<b>‘’Goddown’’ from Wonder Woman #23 (2013)
<i>Script: Brian Azzarello; Art: Cliff Chiang; Colors: Matthew Wilson; Letters: Jared K. Fletcher; Cover: Cliff Chiang </i></b>
A very confusing chapter, and I didn’t enjoy it at all. It was about Hera and her children, and Wonder Woman protecting them. Even though this is the newest made, it didn’t seem like it, and the art seemed old-style.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy it as much, and it wouldn’t be something I’d choose in the future. I’d rather go with a proper beginning-to-end story rather than a compilation next time.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-review-1.png"/>;
This is my first graphic novel, and I did enjoy the art in it! This book contains the greatest battles of Wonder Woman. It is a compilation of seven comic book scenes, all sharing a different battle of Wonder Woman, and a different kind of art.. But even though I enjoyed the art, as a first one, this didn’t make me happy.
The stories are put in this compilation chronologically by when they were made, starting from a scene that was made in 1987, until the last one, which was made in 2013. I will give a brief comment on all of them - in order:
<b>‘’Power Play’’ from Wonder Woman #6 (1987)
<i>Plot & Pencils: George Perez, Script: Len Wein, Inks: Bruce Patterson, Colors: Tatjana Wood, Letters: John Costanza, Cover: George Perez</i></b>
The first story is a scene where Diana is fighting the god of war - Ares. As a first one, it is not the best descriptive piece of information - so for a person that haven’t heard about Wonder Woman before, this one won’t be of any use. I also didn’t quite enjoy the art in this one.
<b><i>‘’And for the first time in his immortal existence, the war-god weeps… for, without those alive to worship him, Ares’ power swiftly wanes…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’In The Forest Of The Night’’ from Wonder Woman #119 (1997)
<i>Story & Art: John Byrne; Colors: Patricia Mulvihill; Cover: Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez</i></b>
In this scene, Diana is on a mission to save officer Michael P. Schorr of the G.C.P.D. from the cheetah that used to be Barbara Minerva. Diana manages to convince Barbara to win the battle with herself and become human again. Even though I didn’t quite enjoy the art - I did enjoy the story itself. It was a great lesson of fighting for who you are within, and winning battles with yourself and not surrendering to anything that might be in your way. We also get to have a little sneak-peak of how Wonder Woman started existing in the first place.
<b><i>‘’Yes, Mike, it is not widely known, but I was not born as mortals are, my mother sculpted a baby from the clay of Themyscira and the Gods themselves breathed life into that clay. ‘’</i></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-cover-4.png"/>;
<b>‘’Stoned: Conclusion’’ from Wonder Woman #210 (2005)
<i>Script: Greg Rucka; Pencils: Drew Johnson; Inks: Ray Snyder; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
This one is a gladiator battle between Wonder Woman and Medusa. I really enjoyed this one, the art was amazing and we even get a few scenes with Circe-witch on it. I love how Wonder Woman is presented to be smart and the sacrifice that she made was very brave. Such a powerful story! Amazing!
<b>‘’Sacrifice: Part four’’ from Wonder Woman #219 (2005)
<i>Scripts: Greg Rucka; Pencils:Rags Morales, David Lopez, Tom Derenick, Georges Jeanty & Karl Kerschl; Inks: Mark Propst, BIT, Dexter Vines, Bob Petrecca & Nelson; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
Superman has been brainwashed and wants to kill Diana. Not much happens apart from Wonder Woman and Superman fighting. I didn’t like this one, only because of one quote that says:
<b><i>‘’You’ll forgive me for saying it, princess, but you look good on your knees…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’A Murder Of Crows: Part Two - Throwdown’’ from Wonder Woman #41 (2010)
<i>Script: Gail Simone; Pencils: Chris Batista & Fernando Dagnino; Inks: Doug Hazlewood & Raul Fernandez; Colors: Brad Anderson; Letters: Travis Lanham; Cover: Aaron Lopresti</i></b>
Even though the beginning features Achilles and Patroclus, after a page or two we don’t see them anymore, and I am standing like… what’s the point in mentioning them in the first place then? This piece of art contains a battle between Power Girl and Wonder Woman, and how Power Girl can never be like Wonder Woman, unless, of course, she has no other choice.
I liked this one, maybe the most, even though the art was just average.
<b>‘’Justice League: Part Three’’ from Justice League #3 (2011)
<i>Script: Geoff Johns; Pencils: Jim Lee; Inks: Scott Williams; Colors: Alex Sinclair, HI-FI & Gabe Ettaeb; Letters: Pat Brosseau; Cover: Jim Lee, Scott Williams & Alex Sinclair</i></b>
This piece of art was different than anything else in this book. We see a lot of famous heroes fight, like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and of course, Wonder Woman. The art is really colourful, which I enjoyed, but the story was confusing. See, it started from the middle of a comic book, and then ended unfinished. It only covered the part where Wonder Woman appears, but it confused me and I didn’t enjoy the story as much. Again, I didn’t like the way how they express themselves to a woman. They see Wonder Woman and they call dibs on her. Really?
<b>‘’Goddown’’ from Wonder Woman #23 (2013)
<i>Script: Brian Azzarello; Art: Cliff Chiang; Colors: Matthew Wilson; Letters: Jared K. Fletcher; Cover: Cliff Chiang </i></b>
A very confusing chapter, and I didn’t enjoy it at all. It was about Hera and her children, and Wonder Woman protecting them. Even though this is the newest made, it didn’t seem like it, and the art seemed old-style.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy it as much, and it wouldn’t be something I’d choose in the future. I’d rather go with a proper beginning-to-end story rather than a compilation next time.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;