Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lars and the Real Girl (2007) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Writer Nancy Oliver (Six Feet Under, True Blood) wrote the script for Lars and the Real Girl in 2002 after stumbling onto the website RealDoll.com. Directed by Craig Gillespie (the 2011 Fright Night remake, I, Tonya), Lars and the Real Girl is a much more tender and thoughtful comedic drama than you may be expecting. Ryan Gosling portrays Lars Lindstrom; a socially awkward yet decent guy. His brother, Gus (Paul Schneider, The Flowers of War), and his wife, Karen (Emily Mortimer, Transsiberian), worry about him since he spends so much time alone.
Lars not only has a shy and stand-offish demeanor he also tends to avoid people and social interactions altogether. If a woman happens to speak to him, Lars is incapable of responding. Physical contact from anyone seems to physically hurt Lars, but that doesn’t stop his friends and family from encouraging him to get a girlfriend. One fateful day, Lars is shown a peculiar website by a co-worker that sells love dolls. Although Lars is reluctant at first, he eventually warms up to the idea of a love doll as his companion. Bianca soon becomes an especially important part of Lars’ life and her presence not only changes Lars, but the town that he lives in for the better.
It took nearly a year to finally see Lars and the Real Girl after its theatrical release; a statistic that seems like a luxury ten years later when seeing and promoting new releases seems to lose steam after its opening weekend. The concept for Lars and the Real Girl is a strange one. A sex doll tagging along with an extreme introvert doesn’t sound all that appealing at first, but Lars is easy to understand as a character especially if you’re an introvert yourself or have had trouble with the opposite sex at some point in your life. Dating was always this massive hurdle that only seemed to expand and grow with each failed first date or cancellation. With those experiences and that mentality where you find yourself retreating into your own constructed sanctuary, Lars is strangely easy to relate to.
It’s not that Ryan Gosling hasn’t been a part of big budget films, but Lars and the Real Girl was released at a time in his career when he was catering more towards the independent side of things. This is pre-Drive yet post-Notebook Ryan Gosling here; films like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine solidified how talented Gosling is as an actor without all the bells and whistles of a huge cast or blockbuster film. Lars and the Real Girl is the film that made a lot of people realize that Gosling was more than a teenage heartthrob and former Mouseketeer.
Gosling fits the Lars Lindstrom role perfectly as he’s capable of portraying quirks that are as awkward as they are charming. How he’s able to talk to a doll for over an hour and not only make it believable, but also entertaining is incredibly impressive. Part of that is attributed to Bianca being treated like an actual person with her own trailer, getting dressed in private, and only being on set when she was in the scene, but Gosling also contributed quite a bit as well. Gosling improvised the CPR on Margo’s teddy bear sequence and the scene before he and Bianca enter the party.
The film fits that independent film mold a bit too well as it has humor that’s funny but not laugh out loud funny and is dramatic and heartfelt enough to make you invested in something you likely never would without the context of the film. The film shares elements from films like Her, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Lost in Translation; that sensation of being lost in what is considered to be normal society but finding something unorthodox that makes you belong and feel comfortable and whole. There’s this overwhelming sense of charm and sentimentality that can only be found in films like this.
Lars and the Real Girl is a comedic drama that relies on awkward situations or even one rare occurrence that triggers unusual peculiarities as it focuses on people’s reactions to these situations that occur. It’s worth seeing if you’ve ever felt like an outcast and to witness Lars’ odd behavior and the snowball effect that it causes. Introverts will likely enjoy it more than the average film lover, but Lars and the Real Girl takes something that seems taboo on the surface and molds it into this genuine motion picture experience that is strangely beautiful.
Lars and the Real Girl is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also available to stream for free on Amazon Prime if you have Starz with Prime Video channels. The DVD is $8.51 and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $7.68 on Amazon. On eBay, the DVD is $7.98 and the Blu-ray is $7.95 (or best offer) while both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Lars not only has a shy and stand-offish demeanor he also tends to avoid people and social interactions altogether. If a woman happens to speak to him, Lars is incapable of responding. Physical contact from anyone seems to physically hurt Lars, but that doesn’t stop his friends and family from encouraging him to get a girlfriend. One fateful day, Lars is shown a peculiar website by a co-worker that sells love dolls. Although Lars is reluctant at first, he eventually warms up to the idea of a love doll as his companion. Bianca soon becomes an especially important part of Lars’ life and her presence not only changes Lars, but the town that he lives in for the better.
It took nearly a year to finally see Lars and the Real Girl after its theatrical release; a statistic that seems like a luxury ten years later when seeing and promoting new releases seems to lose steam after its opening weekend. The concept for Lars and the Real Girl is a strange one. A sex doll tagging along with an extreme introvert doesn’t sound all that appealing at first, but Lars is easy to understand as a character especially if you’re an introvert yourself or have had trouble with the opposite sex at some point in your life. Dating was always this massive hurdle that only seemed to expand and grow with each failed first date or cancellation. With those experiences and that mentality where you find yourself retreating into your own constructed sanctuary, Lars is strangely easy to relate to.
It’s not that Ryan Gosling hasn’t been a part of big budget films, but Lars and the Real Girl was released at a time in his career when he was catering more towards the independent side of things. This is pre-Drive yet post-Notebook Ryan Gosling here; films like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine solidified how talented Gosling is as an actor without all the bells and whistles of a huge cast or blockbuster film. Lars and the Real Girl is the film that made a lot of people realize that Gosling was more than a teenage heartthrob and former Mouseketeer.
Gosling fits the Lars Lindstrom role perfectly as he’s capable of portraying quirks that are as awkward as they are charming. How he’s able to talk to a doll for over an hour and not only make it believable, but also entertaining is incredibly impressive. Part of that is attributed to Bianca being treated like an actual person with her own trailer, getting dressed in private, and only being on set when she was in the scene, but Gosling also contributed quite a bit as well. Gosling improvised the CPR on Margo’s teddy bear sequence and the scene before he and Bianca enter the party.
The film fits that independent film mold a bit too well as it has humor that’s funny but not laugh out loud funny and is dramatic and heartfelt enough to make you invested in something you likely never would without the context of the film. The film shares elements from films like Her, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Lost in Translation; that sensation of being lost in what is considered to be normal society but finding something unorthodox that makes you belong and feel comfortable and whole. There’s this overwhelming sense of charm and sentimentality that can only be found in films like this.
Lars and the Real Girl is a comedic drama that relies on awkward situations or even one rare occurrence that triggers unusual peculiarities as it focuses on people’s reactions to these situations that occur. It’s worth seeing if you’ve ever felt like an outcast and to witness Lars’ odd behavior and the snowball effect that it causes. Introverts will likely enjoy it more than the average film lover, but Lars and the Real Girl takes something that seems taboo on the surface and molds it into this genuine motion picture experience that is strangely beautiful.
Lars and the Real Girl is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also available to stream for free on Amazon Prime if you have Starz with Prime Video channels. The DVD is $8.51 and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $7.68 on Amazon. On eBay, the DVD is $7.98 and the Blu-ray is $7.95 (or best offer) while both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The Crowning of the Fire King by Sorcerer
Album Watch
Sorcerer was formed in Stockholm, Sweden in 1988 by Johnny Hagel (Tiamat, Sundown, Lithium), Tommy...
metal
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The World's End (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This summer’s movie lineup has been crammed full of sophisticated robots, vampires and even a recently passed billionaire genius. And then you have The World’s End (“TWE”), which might simply be the best and most creative of the bunch. Having a much smaller budget than these bigger movies, and being set in England, Edgar Wright shows that it’s not all about money and tropics in this hilarious romp.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Gideon's Angel in Books
Aug 15, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Nightmares: A New Decade of Modern Horror in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/nightmares-a-new-decade-of-modern-horror-by-various-authors
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
I decided that instead of rating this book overall, it would be better to rate each individual story, so that’s what I’ve done. Obviously I had to rate the overall book so I actually calculated the average of all the ratings lol.
<b><u>Shallaballah</b></u> by Mark Samuels
<i>1 star</i>
Not a good start to the book for me. I was over the stitched up face appearance, creepy hospital, shady operations kind of horror story long ago, so this did pretty much nothing for me. Yes there were creepy elements to it but not enough. I also get what it was trying to do with the whole vanity, television thing, but it didn’t really work and so for me, added nothing to the overall plot.
<b><u>Sob in the Silence</b></u> by Gene Wolfe
<i>3 stars</i>
This was a pretty good creepy story, I much prefer stories that don't really have any paranormal elements to them and are more about the madness of the human brain. This short story had a bit of both to it so it was much preferable to the last! Didn't like the weird abrupt ending though, it felt like the story had been cut short.
<b><u>Our Turn Too Will One Day Come</b></u> by Brian Hodge
<i>4 stars</i>
This definitely had my skin crawling a bit. I love this kind of horror story that incorporates creatures and family secrets, kind of gave me The Village vibes… Is that the name of that film? Anyway, yes, great short!
<b><u>Dead Sea Fruit</b></u> by Kaaron Warren
<i>3 stars</i>
This short was pretty good, the Ash Mouth Man was pretty freaky but the writing was a bit all over the place and I felt too much was squeezed into such a small story. I'd love to read a full length story about this Ash Man, that would definitely be disturbing to read!
<b><u>Closet Dreams</b></u> by Lisa Tuttle
<i>4 stars</i>
Really well written and completely terrifying! I hate abduction stories so much because it could happen to anyone. It's not like the demonic ghost stories that you choose to believe or not believe, men who rape and steal little girls are <b>real.</b> The ending was… Predictable… Done before… Boring… But the rest of it was good enough to warrant it 4 stars!
<b><u>Spectral Evidence</b></u> by Gemma Files
<i>1 star</i>
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I didn’t like the way this was set out, very frustrating to read on a Kindle! Also, I didn’t really get it, it was so all over the place I forgot what was happening previously.
<b><u>Hushabye</b></u> by Simon Bestwick
<i>2 stars.</i>
I wanted to like this one but there was too much missing from the story, maybe it was meant to be mysterious but in my eyes it just felt unfinished. Like what was the man sucking out of the children? And what really happened to Hardiman? Also I thought the narrator was a woman until we finally learnt his name was Paul, don’t know why, I just imagined him that way.
<b><u>Very Low-Flying Aircraft</b></u> by Nicholas Royle
<i>3 stars</i>
I’m not really a big fan of war based novels / stories so from the get go I knew I wasn’t going to get on that well with this story but it wasn’t so bad. I didn’t feel like this story explained itself enough or maybe it did and I just didn’t get it? Like why did it matter that Frankie looked like Victoria and why did Flynn go to the clinic? Also, I didn’t think it of a horror story really, though it was scary and horrible, it didn’t give me the heeby-jeebys like some of the others have done.
<b><u>The Goosle</b></u> by Margo Lanagan
<i>2 stars</i>
Seriously, seriously grotesque. If you have a weak stomach, <i>avoid this.</i> A very peculiar branch off the traditional Hansel and Gretel story we all know. This isn’t my kind of horror at all. I much prefer scary, mysterious human crime and occasionally a paranormal story. Torture porn is not at all my thing. This was very well written though, so props to Lanagan for that.
<b><u>The Clay Party</b></u> by Steve Duffy
<i>4 stars</i>
Again, not exactly what I’d classify as a horror story, but a great read nonetheless. Excellently written and enjoyable the whole way through, up until the end… the ending definitely wasn’t my kind of style so that was disappointing for me personally, but I’m sure others would love it!
<b><u>Strappado</b></u> by Laird Barron
<i>3 stars</i>
Definitely one of the strangest of the shorts in this novel. I thought it was excellently written but I didn’t quite get it? Maybe I was just having an off day when I read this but it didn’t really do anything for me.
<b><u>Lonegan’s Luck</b></u> by Stephen Graham Jones
<i>4 stars</i>
This is one of those stories I don’t know why I like. I never used to be into these kinds of rural town, religious apocalyptic kind of books, but ever since reading Mammoth, I’ve begun to enjoy reading them. Admittedly this had me a little confused to begin with, there were what felt like a lot of characters, but in the end none of the mattered anyway, they were just there to set the scene.
<b><u>Mr Pigsny</b></u> by Reggie Oliver
<i>3 stars</i>
I feel like I’ve read this book a million times. It’s one of those stories that's been redone time and time again with just slight changes here and there. It isn’t a bad plot per say, I certainly enjoyed it, it just had nothing unique about it.
<b><u>At Night, When the Demons Come by</b></u> by Ray Cluley
<i>4 stars</i>
One of the longer stories in this book but also one of the best. It had a pleasing twist to it and some interesting characters. I guess I quite like the whole apocalyptic feel when it comes to stories. I personally don’t feel this one was a horror story, more like a fantasy thriller.
<b><u>Was She Wicked? Was She Good?</b></u> by Mary Rickert
<i>4 stars</i>
This was a sad horror story, but in a way, it was also quite beautiful. I really liked the plot, it was something quite different to all the others in this collection and I thought the way it was written flowed well. Enjoyable short story!
<b><u>The Shallows</b></u> by John Langan
<i>2 stars</i>
I liked how this was written but I didn’t get it? I got bored halfway through it too, it was a half an hour read and I just couldn’t understand it so I skimmed the last 10 minutes or so. Yawn.
<b><u>Little Pig</b></u> by Anna Taborska
<i>3 stars</i>
Meh. This was well written and very different to the rest of the stories in this collection but was it a horror story? No. It was tragic, but not scary. Disappointing because whenever I see the word “pig” in relation to something “scary” I think of AHS.
<b><u>Omphalos</b></u> by Livia Llewellyn
<i>3 stars</i>
<b>TRIGGER WARNING: SEXUAL ABUSE</b>
This story was definitely very unique to the rest of the stories in this collection in the terms that this was a horror story that focused more on the real life horrors of families rather than made up monsters and ghouls. This story isn’t for the faint-hearted, it was horrific and gruesome and very upsetting. It wasn’t the best story in the collection when it came to plot or writing style, but it did bring out strong emotions in me, which other stories have been unable to do.
<b><u>How We Escaped Our Certain Fate</b></u> by Dan Chaon
<i>5 stars</i>
I liked how this was a different take on a classic zombie story - <b><i>”It wasn’t the end of the world… of course, a bite would infect you, but they weren’t terribly aggressive, in general.”</b></i> This was by far my favourite story in the entire book, it was so sad and emotional. It was beautiful.
<b><u>That Tiny Flutter of the Heart I Used to Call Love</b></u> by Robert Shearman
<i>4 stars</i>
Creepy, creepy, creepy. Dolls terrify me thanks to modern horror, although, really, I’ve always felt unsettled by them. Enjoyable story though. Poor Julian.
(This story almost had my name in it! “Suki” is close enough to Zuky.)
<b><u>Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No.8)</b></u> by Caitlin R. Kiernan
<i>3 stars</i>
Hmm, why did the shorts at the end of this book get all meaningful and loved up? I think that kinda ruined this for me. Granted it was disturbed and pretty grotesque at times but sadness of the ending ruined that creepy effect of the book and just left this kind of hanging in the space between horror and tragedy.
<b><u>Shay Corsham Worsted</b></u> by Garth Nix
<i>4 stars</i>
This was an interesting story and I liked our harsh but caring main character, Sir David. I wish this story was a little longer so we could find out more about Shay because I feel the missing backstory left this plot wide open. Enjoyable nonetheless.
<b><u>The Atlas of Hell</b></u> by Nathan Ballingrud
<i>3 stars</i>
I really enjoyed this to begin with though I thought it had a little David Wong influence, a writing style I’m not into. All was going well for this story until I got towards the end of it, where it completely lost me. Whether this is down to the annoying man sat on the train next to me, speaking into his phone at 32596 decibels, or just because the plot went AWOL, we’ll never know.
<b><u>Ambitious Boys Like You</b></u> by Richard Kadrey
<i>4 stars</i>
I like these kinds of creepy stories! They’re not particularly unique anymore, because they’ve been done so many different times in so many different, but similar ways, but they’re still fun to read. The old man was especially disturbing just because he was so witty and chilled out. I liked that this story had elements of humour to it, it made a nice change to the more recent emotion filled stories.
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Tachyon Publications for giving me the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
I decided that instead of rating this book overall, it would be better to rate each individual story, so that’s what I’ve done. Obviously I had to rate the overall book so I actually calculated the average of all the ratings lol.
<b><u>Shallaballah</b></u> by Mark Samuels
<i>1 star</i>
Not a good start to the book for me. I was over the stitched up face appearance, creepy hospital, shady operations kind of horror story long ago, so this did pretty much nothing for me. Yes there were creepy elements to it but not enough. I also get what it was trying to do with the whole vanity, television thing, but it didn’t really work and so for me, added nothing to the overall plot.
<b><u>Sob in the Silence</b></u> by Gene Wolfe
<i>3 stars</i>
This was a pretty good creepy story, I much prefer stories that don't really have any paranormal elements to them and are more about the madness of the human brain. This short story had a bit of both to it so it was much preferable to the last! Didn't like the weird abrupt ending though, it felt like the story had been cut short.
<b><u>Our Turn Too Will One Day Come</b></u> by Brian Hodge
<i>4 stars</i>
This definitely had my skin crawling a bit. I love this kind of horror story that incorporates creatures and family secrets, kind of gave me The Village vibes… Is that the name of that film? Anyway, yes, great short!
<b><u>Dead Sea Fruit</b></u> by Kaaron Warren
<i>3 stars</i>
This short was pretty good, the Ash Mouth Man was pretty freaky but the writing was a bit all over the place and I felt too much was squeezed into such a small story. I'd love to read a full length story about this Ash Man, that would definitely be disturbing to read!
<b><u>Closet Dreams</b></u> by Lisa Tuttle
<i>4 stars</i>
Really well written and completely terrifying! I hate abduction stories so much because it could happen to anyone. It's not like the demonic ghost stories that you choose to believe or not believe, men who rape and steal little girls are <b>real.</b> The ending was… Predictable… Done before… Boring… But the rest of it was good enough to warrant it 4 stars!
<b><u>Spectral Evidence</b></u> by Gemma Files
<i>1 star</i>
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I didn’t like the way this was set out, very frustrating to read on a Kindle! Also, I didn’t really get it, it was so all over the place I forgot what was happening previously.
<b><u>Hushabye</b></u> by Simon Bestwick
<i>2 stars.</i>
I wanted to like this one but there was too much missing from the story, maybe it was meant to be mysterious but in my eyes it just felt unfinished. Like what was the man sucking out of the children? And what really happened to Hardiman? Also I thought the narrator was a woman until we finally learnt his name was Paul, don’t know why, I just imagined him that way.
<b><u>Very Low-Flying Aircraft</b></u> by Nicholas Royle
<i>3 stars</i>
I’m not really a big fan of war based novels / stories so from the get go I knew I wasn’t going to get on that well with this story but it wasn’t so bad. I didn’t feel like this story explained itself enough or maybe it did and I just didn’t get it? Like why did it matter that Frankie looked like Victoria and why did Flynn go to the clinic? Also, I didn’t think it of a horror story really, though it was scary and horrible, it didn’t give me the heeby-jeebys like some of the others have done.
<b><u>The Goosle</b></u> by Margo Lanagan
<i>2 stars</i>
Seriously, seriously grotesque. If you have a weak stomach, <i>avoid this.</i> A very peculiar branch off the traditional Hansel and Gretel story we all know. This isn’t my kind of horror at all. I much prefer scary, mysterious human crime and occasionally a paranormal story. Torture porn is not at all my thing. This was very well written though, so props to Lanagan for that.
<b><u>The Clay Party</b></u> by Steve Duffy
<i>4 stars</i>
Again, not exactly what I’d classify as a horror story, but a great read nonetheless. Excellently written and enjoyable the whole way through, up until the end… the ending definitely wasn’t my kind of style so that was disappointing for me personally, but I’m sure others would love it!
<b><u>Strappado</b></u> by Laird Barron
<i>3 stars</i>
Definitely one of the strangest of the shorts in this novel. I thought it was excellently written but I didn’t quite get it? Maybe I was just having an off day when I read this but it didn’t really do anything for me.
<b><u>Lonegan’s Luck</b></u> by Stephen Graham Jones
<i>4 stars</i>
This is one of those stories I don’t know why I like. I never used to be into these kinds of rural town, religious apocalyptic kind of books, but ever since reading Mammoth, I’ve begun to enjoy reading them. Admittedly this had me a little confused to begin with, there were what felt like a lot of characters, but in the end none of the mattered anyway, they were just there to set the scene.
<b><u>Mr Pigsny</b></u> by Reggie Oliver
<i>3 stars</i>
I feel like I’ve read this book a million times. It’s one of those stories that's been redone time and time again with just slight changes here and there. It isn’t a bad plot per say, I certainly enjoyed it, it just had nothing unique about it.
<b><u>At Night, When the Demons Come by</b></u> by Ray Cluley
<i>4 stars</i>
One of the longer stories in this book but also one of the best. It had a pleasing twist to it and some interesting characters. I guess I quite like the whole apocalyptic feel when it comes to stories. I personally don’t feel this one was a horror story, more like a fantasy thriller.
<b><u>Was She Wicked? Was She Good?</b></u> by Mary Rickert
<i>4 stars</i>
This was a sad horror story, but in a way, it was also quite beautiful. I really liked the plot, it was something quite different to all the others in this collection and I thought the way it was written flowed well. Enjoyable short story!
<b><u>The Shallows</b></u> by John Langan
<i>2 stars</i>
I liked how this was written but I didn’t get it? I got bored halfway through it too, it was a half an hour read and I just couldn’t understand it so I skimmed the last 10 minutes or so. Yawn.
<b><u>Little Pig</b></u> by Anna Taborska
<i>3 stars</i>
Meh. This was well written and very different to the rest of the stories in this collection but was it a horror story? No. It was tragic, but not scary. Disappointing because whenever I see the word “pig” in relation to something “scary” I think of AHS.
<b><u>Omphalos</b></u> by Livia Llewellyn
<i>3 stars</i>
<b>TRIGGER WARNING: SEXUAL ABUSE</b>
This story was definitely very unique to the rest of the stories in this collection in the terms that this was a horror story that focused more on the real life horrors of families rather than made up monsters and ghouls. This story isn’t for the faint-hearted, it was horrific and gruesome and very upsetting. It wasn’t the best story in the collection when it came to plot or writing style, but it did bring out strong emotions in me, which other stories have been unable to do.
<b><u>How We Escaped Our Certain Fate</b></u> by Dan Chaon
<i>5 stars</i>
I liked how this was a different take on a classic zombie story - <b><i>”It wasn’t the end of the world… of course, a bite would infect you, but they weren’t terribly aggressive, in general.”</b></i> This was by far my favourite story in the entire book, it was so sad and emotional. It was beautiful.
<b><u>That Tiny Flutter of the Heart I Used to Call Love</b></u> by Robert Shearman
<i>4 stars</i>
Creepy, creepy, creepy. Dolls terrify me thanks to modern horror, although, really, I’ve always felt unsettled by them. Enjoyable story though. Poor Julian.
(This story almost had my name in it! “Suki” is close enough to Zuky.)
<b><u>Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No.8)</b></u> by Caitlin R. Kiernan
<i>3 stars</i>
Hmm, why did the shorts at the end of this book get all meaningful and loved up? I think that kinda ruined this for me. Granted it was disturbed and pretty grotesque at times but sadness of the ending ruined that creepy effect of the book and just left this kind of hanging in the space between horror and tragedy.
<b><u>Shay Corsham Worsted</b></u> by Garth Nix
<i>4 stars</i>
This was an interesting story and I liked our harsh but caring main character, Sir David. I wish this story was a little longer so we could find out more about Shay because I feel the missing backstory left this plot wide open. Enjoyable nonetheless.
<b><u>The Atlas of Hell</b></u> by Nathan Ballingrud
<i>3 stars</i>
I really enjoyed this to begin with though I thought it had a little David Wong influence, a writing style I’m not into. All was going well for this story until I got towards the end of it, where it completely lost me. Whether this is down to the annoying man sat on the train next to me, speaking into his phone at 32596 decibels, or just because the plot went AWOL, we’ll never know.
<b><u>Ambitious Boys Like You</b></u> by Richard Kadrey
<i>4 stars</i>
I like these kinds of creepy stories! They’re not particularly unique anymore, because they’ve been done so many different times in so many different, but similar ways, but they’re still fun to read. The old man was especially disturbing just because he was so witty and chilled out. I liked that this story had elements of humour to it, it made a nice change to the more recent emotion filled stories.
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Tachyon Publications for giving me the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.