Search
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
It’s always surprising when a truly awful film performs well at the box-office, but that’s exactly what happened with 2017’s London Has Fallen. Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews, the sequel to 2013’s marginally better Olympus Has Fallen made over four times its production budget in ticket sales.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Hadley (567 KP) rated Cigarette Teeth in Books
Dec 4, 2020
Great writing (1 more)
Amazing descriptions
In this day-and-age, everyone is willing to do anything to get what they want. People leave their morals and values behind at the drop of a hat. Partly, because of this, mental illness is at an all-time high and happiness is at an all-time low.
What if I told you there was a phone number you could call that would give you whatever you wanted...for a simple favor in return? Enter : Cigarette Teeth. The horror novel concerns two different places that exist in our world: the Pleasure Palace, where the Magician resides in an overcast of red light where he helps make peoples' 'dreams' come true, and our reality - - - the world as we've grown to know it.
Our main character, Mike Hadley, can't remember his past or how he ended up working for the Magician, but he's more than happy to do what he's told in Cigarette Teeth. Some things seem familiar to him, like his working partner, Tommy; but if you asked him what he did last night for the Magician, he wouldn't be able to tell you or remember it himself. Harper, a man Hadley meets early on in the story, who is the stereo-typical hardened detective, tells Hadley that he knows that the Pleasure Palace has been the cause of hundreds of disappearances - - - including Harper's own brother and sister- - - and demands that Hadley help him get into the Palace to find them.
Hadley is kidnapped by Harper while people working for the Pleasure Palace begin to come after them, trying to kill them. Unlike Hadley, Harper has done a lot of detective work on the Pleasure Palace and knows much more than he does. For Hadley, a lot of things begin to make sense and no sense at the same time, like people who work for the Pleasure Palace can't die, instead they regenerate in a very gruesome way- - - something he had never seen happen before. Now, being away from the Palace, whenever Hadley falls asleep, memories start to come back to him in the form of dreams; most of them take place in metaphorical places that slowly unwrap his tragic past to the reader.
I often found myself fascinated by the characters Hewish came up with that live in the Pleasure Palace. One being the Zipper Sisters: "Kela and and Lua Von Zipper. Conjoined twins; connected at the hip and zipped into the one gigantic pinched- leather corset. Two heads, two arms, and four legs, all sealed in an ornate, Victorian-style leather dress hemmed with black lace.
Their makeup was corpse-white, their lipstick blood red. Their eyes were shadowed with a weeping pastel green, like something from a carnival sideshow. Their 18th-century dress continued with ruffles and lacy stockings, all the colour of snow. The two pairs of shoes they wore- - - shiny little school shoes, the ones with the clasps over the top- - - completed the look. It gave these sinister twins a suggested air of innocence- - - the filthiest of lies. "
When the pair meet with the Architect of the Pleasure Palace (Horitoshi Li), the story really begins to take off. The information given to them by Li about the Magician is the real start to their journey to stop the Palace and find Harper's missing siblings, as long as they include Li in the plan.
As expected, a friend of Harper's, named Sophie, gets caught up in their journey- - - saving their lives more than once, thanks to her nursing background. Sophie felt like a filler character at first, but in the end, I think she was needed to make the story well-rounded, like her insight of psychology: "...But...it's just interesting. Did you know the second most common dream people have is about their teeth? After the 'being chased' phenomenon that usually coincides with a hallway and a door. Most notable psychologists don't really offer insight on dreams- - - the most popular consensus is that they're nothing more than cerebral static, just garbled images and words that occasionally form to make something that seems to have weight..."
Though I want to say so much more about the novel, it would give away a lot of the surprises that are hidden inside. Hewish's writing is gold; the way he describes scenes is beautifully done, but he did waste some of this talent on places where the characters weren't even there for more than a scene (and nothing really came of it). Also, Harper states one time early in the book that he has killed Hadley before... this is never explained or spoken of again. I think that was a very important part to this story, especially with how things turn out between Harper and Hadley.
There were only a few inconsistencies that are completely able to be looked over and don't ruin the novel. This is master storytelling, and I am looking very forward to more work by Hewish! I would recommend this book to fans of the show "Twin Peaks," and the video game (because I love horror video games) "Evil Within." Highly recommend!
What if I told you there was a phone number you could call that would give you whatever you wanted...for a simple favor in return? Enter : Cigarette Teeth. The horror novel concerns two different places that exist in our world: the Pleasure Palace, where the Magician resides in an overcast of red light where he helps make peoples' 'dreams' come true, and our reality - - - the world as we've grown to know it.
Our main character, Mike Hadley, can't remember his past or how he ended up working for the Magician, but he's more than happy to do what he's told in Cigarette Teeth. Some things seem familiar to him, like his working partner, Tommy; but if you asked him what he did last night for the Magician, he wouldn't be able to tell you or remember it himself. Harper, a man Hadley meets early on in the story, who is the stereo-typical hardened detective, tells Hadley that he knows that the Pleasure Palace has been the cause of hundreds of disappearances - - - including Harper's own brother and sister- - - and demands that Hadley help him get into the Palace to find them.
Hadley is kidnapped by Harper while people working for the Pleasure Palace begin to come after them, trying to kill them. Unlike Hadley, Harper has done a lot of detective work on the Pleasure Palace and knows much more than he does. For Hadley, a lot of things begin to make sense and no sense at the same time, like people who work for the Pleasure Palace can't die, instead they regenerate in a very gruesome way- - - something he had never seen happen before. Now, being away from the Palace, whenever Hadley falls asleep, memories start to come back to him in the form of dreams; most of them take place in metaphorical places that slowly unwrap his tragic past to the reader.
I often found myself fascinated by the characters Hewish came up with that live in the Pleasure Palace. One being the Zipper Sisters: "Kela and and Lua Von Zipper. Conjoined twins; connected at the hip and zipped into the one gigantic pinched- leather corset. Two heads, two arms, and four legs, all sealed in an ornate, Victorian-style leather dress hemmed with black lace.
Their makeup was corpse-white, their lipstick blood red. Their eyes were shadowed with a weeping pastel green, like something from a carnival sideshow. Their 18th-century dress continued with ruffles and lacy stockings, all the colour of snow. The two pairs of shoes they wore- - - shiny little school shoes, the ones with the clasps over the top- - - completed the look. It gave these sinister twins a suggested air of innocence- - - the filthiest of lies. "
When the pair meet with the Architect of the Pleasure Palace (Horitoshi Li), the story really begins to take off. The information given to them by Li about the Magician is the real start to their journey to stop the Palace and find Harper's missing siblings, as long as they include Li in the plan.
As expected, a friend of Harper's, named Sophie, gets caught up in their journey- - - saving their lives more than once, thanks to her nursing background. Sophie felt like a filler character at first, but in the end, I think she was needed to make the story well-rounded, like her insight of psychology: "...But...it's just interesting. Did you know the second most common dream people have is about their teeth? After the 'being chased' phenomenon that usually coincides with a hallway and a door. Most notable psychologists don't really offer insight on dreams- - - the most popular consensus is that they're nothing more than cerebral static, just garbled images and words that occasionally form to make something that seems to have weight..."
Though I want to say so much more about the novel, it would give away a lot of the surprises that are hidden inside. Hewish's writing is gold; the way he describes scenes is beautifully done, but he did waste some of this talent on places where the characters weren't even there for more than a scene (and nothing really came of it). Also, Harper states one time early in the book that he has killed Hadley before... this is never explained or spoken of again. I think that was a very important part to this story, especially with how things turn out between Harper and Hadley.
There were only a few inconsistencies that are completely able to be looked over and don't ruin the novel. This is master storytelling, and I am looking very forward to more work by Hewish! I would recommend this book to fans of the show "Twin Peaks," and the video game (because I love horror video games) "Evil Within." Highly recommend!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam