Search
Search results
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Baggage Handler in Books
Nov 4, 2019
n a similar vein to The Travelers Gift by Andy Andrews or Dinner with a Perfect Stranger by David Gregory, The Baggage Handler is a contemporary story that explores one question: What baggage are you carrying?
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Dear Justice League in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Other than Timothy Forner's MONTGOMERY SCHNAUZER, P.I., I am not much of a reader of books aimed at young'uns. However, when I saw that this was a book approachable by both adults (with an sense of fun) as well as well as the intended audience, I was onboard.
The premise was simple: the Justice Leaguers answering texts and emails, as well as an actual physical letter (thanks, Bats!), that deal with honest questions that children would likely pose to the heroes if they were real. There was also a backstory dealing with insectoids intent on invading the Earth, but yeah, not as important as the intial "Dear Justice League.." emails and texts. :)
Michael Northrop has a great sense of how to have fun without alienating the core fans, as well as satisfying the kids that were just intent on seeing how it might be if the League were able to answer their burning questions. I am a big fan of the "Bwa-hahahaha" years of Giffen and DeMatteis' JLI stories in the 80's, so this was definitely something I had no problem enjoying or even laughing out loud while reading it.
Equally fun was the art by Gustavo Duarte. His rendering of our "beloved" heroes did not cheapen our them, more of, in my opinion, a humanizing effect, which made them more relatable to their intended audience. I was not familiar with Brazilian cartoonist Duarte, but going forward, I will keeping an eye out for more by him.
Here's my final word... Regardless of where we are in the world at this particular moment, we know that we are stuck inside, trying to avoid contact with See-Oh-Vee-Eye-Dee (shhhh!), with our loved ones, and if you have children (my wife and I do not), you're probably experiencing some cabin fever. This book, right here, is the best solution to a bad situation. And, best of it, it's available on Kindle and Comixology, so you don't even need to go anywhere to obtain a copy! So, go ahead, get it and have good, old-fashioned fun, with/with children in your life!
Be safe, my friends!
The premise was simple: the Justice Leaguers answering texts and emails, as well as an actual physical letter (thanks, Bats!), that deal with honest questions that children would likely pose to the heroes if they were real. There was also a backstory dealing with insectoids intent on invading the Earth, but yeah, not as important as the intial "Dear Justice League.." emails and texts. :)
Michael Northrop has a great sense of how to have fun without alienating the core fans, as well as satisfying the kids that were just intent on seeing how it might be if the League were able to answer their burning questions. I am a big fan of the "Bwa-hahahaha" years of Giffen and DeMatteis' JLI stories in the 80's, so this was definitely something I had no problem enjoying or even laughing out loud while reading it.
Equally fun was the art by Gustavo Duarte. His rendering of our "beloved" heroes did not cheapen our them, more of, in my opinion, a humanizing effect, which made them more relatable to their intended audience. I was not familiar with Brazilian cartoonist Duarte, but going forward, I will keeping an eye out for more by him.
Here's my final word... Regardless of where we are in the world at this particular moment, we know that we are stuck inside, trying to avoid contact with See-Oh-Vee-Eye-Dee (shhhh!), with our loved ones, and if you have children (my wife and I do not), you're probably experiencing some cabin fever. This book, right here, is the best solution to a bad situation. And, best of it, it's available on Kindle and Comixology, so you don't even need to go anywhere to obtain a copy! So, go ahead, get it and have good, old-fashioned fun, with/with children in your life!
Be safe, my friends!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Staircase in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Nov 27, 2018)
Pretty Captivating
I went straight into watching the Staircase immediately after watching Evil Genius and initially was underwhelmed due to the simplicity of this case in comparison to the case in Evil Genius. However, after sticking with the show after a few episodes, I found myself more invested and binged the entire series over the next few days. I never watched the original 9 episodes when they originally aired back in 2004, which I was actually glad of as it allowed me to take in the entire story in a few sittings from start to finish.
There are a lot of interesting characters in this doc and it is really them that keep your interest throughout. Michael Peterson is interesting to watch and listen to, regardless of whether or not you think that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of committing. The rest of the Peterson family are also interesting and it is eye opening, - if slightly harrowing, - to see all of these people go through this decades spanning ordeal. Michael's lawyer, David Rudolph is also pretty entertaining and it is compelling to watch him work.
Out of all of the docs I watched recently, this one provides the most closure and tells the most complete story, which makes sticking with all of it's 13 episodes feel satisfying.
I wanted to add a wee bit onto this review after I went to see David Rudolph speak in Glasgow last night during his, 'Inside The Staircase,' World Tour. It was an interesting night and well worth going to as a fan of the documentary. David brought with him some unseen clips from the show and some unseen autopsy photos. After seeing this fresh evidence, I personally am convinced that the Owl Theory is the most plausible scenario at this point. At first, I thought that the Owl Theory was absurd, but after David laid out all of the evidence to support the theory last night, I don't see how it could have possibly played out any other way. Regardless, this is still a very interesting case and the documentary is well worth a binge if you haven't already seen it.
There are a lot of interesting characters in this doc and it is really them that keep your interest throughout. Michael Peterson is interesting to watch and listen to, regardless of whether or not you think that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of committing. The rest of the Peterson family are also interesting and it is eye opening, - if slightly harrowing, - to see all of these people go through this decades spanning ordeal. Michael's lawyer, David Rudolph is also pretty entertaining and it is compelling to watch him work.
Out of all of the docs I watched recently, this one provides the most closure and tells the most complete story, which makes sticking with all of it's 13 episodes feel satisfying.
I wanted to add a wee bit onto this review after I went to see David Rudolph speak in Glasgow last night during his, 'Inside The Staircase,' World Tour. It was an interesting night and well worth going to as a fan of the documentary. David brought with him some unseen clips from the show and some unseen autopsy photos. After seeing this fresh evidence, I personally am convinced that the Owl Theory is the most plausible scenario at this point. At first, I thought that the Owl Theory was absurd, but after David laid out all of the evidence to support the theory last night, I don't see how it could have possibly played out any other way. Regardless, this is still a very interesting case and the documentary is well worth a binge if you haven't already seen it.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Within (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – John is the father of the house, we know he has been on hard times and this house is all he can afford for his family. He does love both his wife and daughter and is trying to teach his daughter a lesson after her mistakes have led them to this location. Hannah is his daughter of John that has been getting herself in trouble which caused the move, she is grounded and is the first one to notice the strange events around the house. Melanie is the new wife and step-mother to Hannah, she doesn’t do much beyond the normal, which is mostly trying to be the best friend in her time of need. Ray is the creepy neighbour that offers to help change the locks, less we say about him the better.
Performances – When we look at the performances in this film we must be praising Erin Moriarty as she is excellent in her role, the weaknesses come from the parental characters, Michael Vartan and Nadine Velazquez who both don’t seem to do much with their roles in the film.
Story – The story here follows the family that move into a new home only to start seeing strange things happening and we fall in the, ‘creepy person living in the attic’ sub-genre, which is one that I feel is getting tiresome, there is only so much you can do while telling this story and if we are being honest we have seen it done on better levels before. The build up follows the checklist and by the end of the film the story just feels like it is trying to hard to be different, rather than good.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from the idea that someone could be living in your house, it is an easy idea for because being haunted in your own home should be working, though this misses the tension required for the film.
Settings – The film is set entirely inside the one house, which is all we need as this keeps the film contained for the maximum levels of horror, even if they don’t use it well.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are good with the kills looking extra brutal when they hit.
Scene of the Movie – The first meeting of David.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this too much.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books horror that doesn’t test the audience enough, it has an easy out which doesn’t get used at all, though the killer does look creepy throughout.
Overall: Been here seen this.
Performances – When we look at the performances in this film we must be praising Erin Moriarty as she is excellent in her role, the weaknesses come from the parental characters, Michael Vartan and Nadine Velazquez who both don’t seem to do much with their roles in the film.
Story – The story here follows the family that move into a new home only to start seeing strange things happening and we fall in the, ‘creepy person living in the attic’ sub-genre, which is one that I feel is getting tiresome, there is only so much you can do while telling this story and if we are being honest we have seen it done on better levels before. The build up follows the checklist and by the end of the film the story just feels like it is trying to hard to be different, rather than good.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from the idea that someone could be living in your house, it is an easy idea for because being haunted in your own home should be working, though this misses the tension required for the film.
Settings – The film is set entirely inside the one house, which is all we need as this keeps the film contained for the maximum levels of horror, even if they don’t use it well.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are good with the kills looking extra brutal when they hit.
Scene of the Movie – The first meeting of David.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this too much.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books horror that doesn’t test the audience enough, it has an easy out which doesn’t get used at all, though the killer does look creepy throughout.
Overall: Been here seen this.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Oct 19, 2019
I like the idea of a horror superhero genre but...
Brightburn is a classic modern example of a great idea, with mediocre execution.
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Just Mercy (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
Having seen Clemency in October I felt like I was prepared for what Just Mercy might throw at me. I was not. The two films handle the death row scenario in very different ways and the storyline that runs alongside it gives you two very different experiences.
Based on a true story - when it comes to history this phrase can be a horrible thing, and when you realise that the events of Just Mercy are only actually dating back to the late 80s/early 90s, well that's kind of sickening, it doesn't feel like this should be something from my own lifetime.
In the lead role of Bryan Stevenson we have Michael B. Jordan. We see Stevenson from intern to established lawyer and yet he doesn't really make any notable progression. The person he is at the beginning isn't all that changed by the end. Jordan's performance is fine, nothing felt technically wrong about it but the consistency was completely off. Every time the character was brought face to face with prejudice and high emotions he managed to knock it out of the park, he was nervous, he was scared, he was devastated. In between those moments he was just there, his performance didn't hold any weight against anyone else's.
Jamie Foxx shows us that missing consistency as Walter McMillan. It felt like he was fully immersed in his character the whole time. There are shots where we're focused on him while other characters are talking and he's always attentive to them, you can see him assessing Stevenson in their meetings and it was fascinating to watch. Every moment was strong without the need for any additional motivation.
When we're inside the prison there are so many different things going on. The tension between the guards and inmates, and that extending to Stevenson is powerful and it's development through the film and the change in attitude was a nice one to see. But the camaraderie between the inmates was probably the thing that was the most affecting, the execution in this was surprisingly subtle but very moving.
Just Mercy has a strong message about the divide and prejudice in southern America and the justice system, it's a very strong reminder of how much has changed because of strong-willed people and how much still needs to change. While I might not watch this film again it was certainly something I enjoyed watching, as much as "enjoyed" feels like the wrong word to use.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/just-mercy-movie-review.html
Based on a true story - when it comes to history this phrase can be a horrible thing, and when you realise that the events of Just Mercy are only actually dating back to the late 80s/early 90s, well that's kind of sickening, it doesn't feel like this should be something from my own lifetime.
In the lead role of Bryan Stevenson we have Michael B. Jordan. We see Stevenson from intern to established lawyer and yet he doesn't really make any notable progression. The person he is at the beginning isn't all that changed by the end. Jordan's performance is fine, nothing felt technically wrong about it but the consistency was completely off. Every time the character was brought face to face with prejudice and high emotions he managed to knock it out of the park, he was nervous, he was scared, he was devastated. In between those moments he was just there, his performance didn't hold any weight against anyone else's.
Jamie Foxx shows us that missing consistency as Walter McMillan. It felt like he was fully immersed in his character the whole time. There are shots where we're focused on him while other characters are talking and he's always attentive to them, you can see him assessing Stevenson in their meetings and it was fascinating to watch. Every moment was strong without the need for any additional motivation.
When we're inside the prison there are so many different things going on. The tension between the guards and inmates, and that extending to Stevenson is powerful and it's development through the film and the change in attitude was a nice one to see. But the camaraderie between the inmates was probably the thing that was the most affecting, the execution in this was surprisingly subtle but very moving.
Just Mercy has a strong message about the divide and prejudice in southern America and the justice system, it's a very strong reminder of how much has changed because of strong-willed people and how much still needs to change. While I might not watch this film again it was certainly something I enjoyed watching, as much as "enjoyed" feels like the wrong word to use.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/just-mercy-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Playing with Fire (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Seeing the trailer for this I was mildly excited, this sort of daft family humour holds a place in my heart and it looked like I was going to get another film to add to the "pick me up" watchlist. But oh my, everything about this experience rubbed me the wrong way.
Jake Carson runs a rugged group of smokejumpers that swoop into action and stop fires from taking hold. On their latest callout they find a cabin about to be engulfed by flames and trapped inside are three children in need of help.
Following the rules, Jake calls Child Protective Services, but being so remote they won't be able to get to them quickly. It's now their duty to keep the three of them safe until they arrive. Four grown men, three kids... what could possibly go wrong?
Where to start? How about that humour I was looking forward to? Or perhaps the severe lack of it. Over the whole runtime I laughed more at the end credits that I did at the whole film. Keegan-Michael Key is by far the funniest thing about the film, but it still isn't a perfect part. Key's way of sliding into scenes and just taking over was excellent, it made me smile, but when these moments started he was funny with just the right amount of over the top but the script would quite often throw him over that fine line and it became tiresome.
John Cena generally isn't bad when it comes to comedy offerings, but in Playing With Fire he's very stiff even for the by-the-books character he's playing. It felt like Jake had been made too straight-laced, he needs to make the transition from uptight to more relaxed but they could have brought it down just one step and it would have been something a lot easier to watch.
Brianna Hildebrand plays the oldest of the rescued children, Brynn. She gives a solid performance and probably has the best character overall, no frustrating quirks, nothing over the top. While she manages to make a good show of it being up against the over the top nature of everything else means it gets lost in the background.
While there might be a twist on the sort of story it doesn't feel new in any respects. I'm feeling rather let down with the whole thing but thankfully we're not short of other films that do this exact thing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/playing-with-fire-movie-review.html
Jake Carson runs a rugged group of smokejumpers that swoop into action and stop fires from taking hold. On their latest callout they find a cabin about to be engulfed by flames and trapped inside are three children in need of help.
Following the rules, Jake calls Child Protective Services, but being so remote they won't be able to get to them quickly. It's now their duty to keep the three of them safe until they arrive. Four grown men, three kids... what could possibly go wrong?
Where to start? How about that humour I was looking forward to? Or perhaps the severe lack of it. Over the whole runtime I laughed more at the end credits that I did at the whole film. Keegan-Michael Key is by far the funniest thing about the film, but it still isn't a perfect part. Key's way of sliding into scenes and just taking over was excellent, it made me smile, but when these moments started he was funny with just the right amount of over the top but the script would quite often throw him over that fine line and it became tiresome.
John Cena generally isn't bad when it comes to comedy offerings, but in Playing With Fire he's very stiff even for the by-the-books character he's playing. It felt like Jake had been made too straight-laced, he needs to make the transition from uptight to more relaxed but they could have brought it down just one step and it would have been something a lot easier to watch.
Brianna Hildebrand plays the oldest of the rescued children, Brynn. She gives a solid performance and probably has the best character overall, no frustrating quirks, nothing over the top. While she manages to make a good show of it being up against the over the top nature of everything else means it gets lost in the background.
While there might be a twist on the sort of story it doesn't feel new in any respects. I'm feeling rather let down with the whole thing but thankfully we're not short of other films that do this exact thing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/playing-with-fire-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Officer Brian Taylor’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) opening monologue in which we see a car chase and shoot out from the front dashboard camera of a Los Angeles black and white, sets the tone for what will be a gripping action flick.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.