Search
Search results
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1 in Books
Apr 30, 2021
56 of 250
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fantastiqa in Tabletop Games
Jul 30, 2021
Ahh yes, Fantastiqa. Another to add to the list of, “I once owned, then I got rid of it, then missed it so much I had to reacquire it.” My wife loves when I do that… In any case, Fantastiqa gives players a very strange slant on deck building adventure games. Some would say the theme and its implementation will make or break it for players. Upon which side of the line do we fall?
Fantastiqa is a fantasy rock-paper-scissors style deck building adventure game. Now each of those mechanics individually can make for a wonderful children’s game. Looking upon the art in Fantastiqa will also nudge players towards that of a children’s game. Alas, Fantastiqa is not a children’s game and players will be scratching their heads for multiple reasons whilst playing it.
To setup, follow the instructions of the rulebook. There are just too many to list and explain here. Once setup, the game should look something like the photo above. Each player will have their draw decks identical to those of their opponents, and the play area is essentially a map of six locations with a statue at each location and decks of cards from which players will be drawing on their turns.
A typical turn will allow players to complete one of three different actions: Go Adventuring (where players will be using cards from their decks to subdue and recruit creatures between locations), Visit a Statue (where players can draw cards from the different decks for Beast, Artifact, and Quest cards to add to their discard piles, or pay gems to exile cards from their hands out of the game, or even pay gems to teleport to the matching statue on the other side of the board), or Complete a Quest (by discarding their appropriate cards that fulfill the quest requirements).
Turns can be very quick, or long and drawn out as players carefully choose which tactics to apply to the board on the table, while weighing the need for more powerful cards in their decks, and keeping up with the Joneses as they compete for VP on Quest cards. This is a deck builder, after all, so improving one’s deck is always the first consideration, but should a player oust those dang tea-drinking lazy dragon cards, or attempt to commit cards to a quest? The choices are quite numerous as play continues, and players realize that, again, this is no child’s game. Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns completing actions and quests until one player gains enough VP through completed quests to win the game.
Components. Every component in Fantastiqa is Fantastiq! I feel like the entire game is linen-finished, save for the little plastic gems and large statueeples. This game feels quite deluxe, and that will always be a big stamp of approval from me. One thing that can jar some players is the choice of art used between the player placards, card art, token art, and other components. They certainly don’t match at all, but I believe this tracks with the quirky nature of the theme and game overall, so I quite enjoy it. I can indeed understand why some would be opposed, but that is not how I feel at all.
I kinda bled into my final thoughts there, but I do love Fantastiqa. The theme is super weird: players answer a Help Wanted ad and long story short they meet a crazy old man who gives them a rucksack full of ordinary items: toothbrush, helmet, bat, and a dog. The dog runs away across the street and players find themselves in another world where these ordinary items are now transformed into magic wands, rams (the animals), clubs, and a dog, among other items. Players I have played with cannot accept that a spatula is a sword in the game and that just breaks immersion for them. I quite like it and the game’s wacky theme.
But the gameplay itself is also quite engaging. Traveling all over this new world subduing (and subsequently recruiting to your cause) Knights with spatulae and Giant Spiders with cat’s teeth is interesting and a fresh way to incorporate a theme into a deck builder as opposed to simply generating purchasing power and buying the cards that are wanted. The statue interactions are great ways to build up your deck as well, and keeping an eye on what quests others are gunning for as well as their personal hidden quests adds a bit of race-game feeling that some other deck builders lack. I can’t say enough great things about Fantastiqa, but completely understand how the theme may break the game for others’ enjoyment. That said, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a well-traveled 10 / 12. It’s weird, I’ll give you that, but it’s a good kind of weird. Check it out.
Fantastiqa is a fantasy rock-paper-scissors style deck building adventure game. Now each of those mechanics individually can make for a wonderful children’s game. Looking upon the art in Fantastiqa will also nudge players towards that of a children’s game. Alas, Fantastiqa is not a children’s game and players will be scratching their heads for multiple reasons whilst playing it.
To setup, follow the instructions of the rulebook. There are just too many to list and explain here. Once setup, the game should look something like the photo above. Each player will have their draw decks identical to those of their opponents, and the play area is essentially a map of six locations with a statue at each location and decks of cards from which players will be drawing on their turns.
A typical turn will allow players to complete one of three different actions: Go Adventuring (where players will be using cards from their decks to subdue and recruit creatures between locations), Visit a Statue (where players can draw cards from the different decks for Beast, Artifact, and Quest cards to add to their discard piles, or pay gems to exile cards from their hands out of the game, or even pay gems to teleport to the matching statue on the other side of the board), or Complete a Quest (by discarding their appropriate cards that fulfill the quest requirements).
Turns can be very quick, or long and drawn out as players carefully choose which tactics to apply to the board on the table, while weighing the need for more powerful cards in their decks, and keeping up with the Joneses as they compete for VP on Quest cards. This is a deck builder, after all, so improving one’s deck is always the first consideration, but should a player oust those dang tea-drinking lazy dragon cards, or attempt to commit cards to a quest? The choices are quite numerous as play continues, and players realize that, again, this is no child’s game. Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns completing actions and quests until one player gains enough VP through completed quests to win the game.
Components. Every component in Fantastiqa is Fantastiq! I feel like the entire game is linen-finished, save for the little plastic gems and large statueeples. This game feels quite deluxe, and that will always be a big stamp of approval from me. One thing that can jar some players is the choice of art used between the player placards, card art, token art, and other components. They certainly don’t match at all, but I believe this tracks with the quirky nature of the theme and game overall, so I quite enjoy it. I can indeed understand why some would be opposed, but that is not how I feel at all.
I kinda bled into my final thoughts there, but I do love Fantastiqa. The theme is super weird: players answer a Help Wanted ad and long story short they meet a crazy old man who gives them a rucksack full of ordinary items: toothbrush, helmet, bat, and a dog. The dog runs away across the street and players find themselves in another world where these ordinary items are now transformed into magic wands, rams (the animals), clubs, and a dog, among other items. Players I have played with cannot accept that a spatula is a sword in the game and that just breaks immersion for them. I quite like it and the game’s wacky theme.
But the gameplay itself is also quite engaging. Traveling all over this new world subduing (and subsequently recruiting to your cause) Knights with spatulae and Giant Spiders with cat’s teeth is interesting and a fresh way to incorporate a theme into a deck builder as opposed to simply generating purchasing power and buying the cards that are wanted. The statue interactions are great ways to build up your deck as well, and keeping an eye on what quests others are gunning for as well as their personal hidden quests adds a bit of race-game feeling that some other deck builders lack. I can’t say enough great things about Fantastiqa, but completely understand how the theme may break the game for others’ enjoyment. That said, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a well-traveled 10 / 12. It’s weird, I’ll give you that, but it’s a good kind of weird. Check it out.
Allison Anders recommended Monterey Pop (1968) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The bloody action. (2 more)
The rhythmic, pounding score.
Amleth's visions and strange encounters.
May be too weird or slow for some. (2 more)
Won't change your opinion of Robert Eggers if you already dislike him as a filmmaker.
...Did you say fart sniffing?
A Gory Viking Epic Forged in Boisterous Greatness
The Northman is director Robert Eggers third feature length film after The Witch and The Lighthouse. The film is written by Eggers and Sjón (Lamb, frequent collaborator with Björk). The Northman is described as an epic historical action drama, but is essentially a Viking revenge film. Taking place in AD 895, King Aurvandill War-Raven (Ethan Hawke) is killed by his brother, Fjölnir (Claes Bang). Aurvandill’s son, Amleth (Oscar Novak portrays young Amleth) flees and swears revenge on his uncle while vowing to save his mother Queen Gudrún (Nicole Kidman).
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Debbiereadsbook (1092 KP) rated From A Jack To A King in Books
Jul 3, 2018 (Updated Jan 31, 2019)
bloody LOVED this book! and the narration!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted both the ebook AND audio version of this book.
First half of this review is from when I READ it, the second half is the audio bit.
Oh it's been a while since I had my Scotty Cade fix, and this proper hit THAT spot!
Bay is, by his own words, pretty much a recluse. Save for promoting his latest book and getting his gambling hit, he doesn't get out much. And when he DOES, he uses his character Jack as his alter ego. Winning escort King in a card game, and coming face to face with the spitting image of Jack knocks Bay off his axis. Just as meeting Bay knocks King off of his. King doesn't see Jack, he sees BAY. He also sees that Bay might be the one to halt his recovery.
I will be honest here, cos ya'll know I'm all about sharing, and tell you, I walked into this one a little wary. I've read a couple of other porn star books and had pretty much decided that I didn't like that particular troupe, and I wouldn't read any more. But this came up, and, I mean, its' Scotty Cade for heaven's sake! So I signed up and I was so very NOT disappointed!
What this one did, what made it stand out, was there was very little "work" time for King, once he and Bay had met. There is a scene before, and one after. But the one after is a huge part of the story; a necessary and integral part.
I loved that it's nearly to the end of the book before Bay and King come together properly. Loved that Bay put his research skills to good use; both for helping King with his recovery and watching all those videos to further his relationship with King.
Loved that while previously only ever having been with women, Bay didn't seem overly perturbed by his attraction to King. OH, he questioned his sexuality, many many times, but he wasn't particularly bothered by it!
There are some difficult topics dealt with here. Bullying and how that effects Bay as an adult. Sex addiction and how that makes King so very wary of what he feels for Bay so very VERY early on. Both topics are dealt with well and with sensitivity, but some readers may struggle with them.
I have just one teeny tiny niggle, but it doesn't affect my rating or my overall enjoyment of this book. It's just ME, being a little bit picky!
I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all! Told you it was me being picky!
Mr Cade has a particular knack of writing with emotion; of being able to make you cry in really random places along with his characters; of being able to grab at your heart strings, tug them, snap them and put them back together again! And I bloody loved this book for that!!
I read this in one sitting, stayed up way past my bedtime to finish this! Loved it!!
5 full and shiny stars!
AUDIO REVIEW
Kenneth Obi narrates. And Mr Obi is growing on me for several reasons. As I see more and more books narrated by him, I can see his skill set growing. A quick search shows far more books that I expected, but the oldest is only November 2017, so he is still fairly new at this, and in the time since I listened to the other one he narrated that is in my library, I can hear a difference.
Obi's voice for Bay was. . . unexpected. I've no idea WHY, but that was my first thought. He sounds almost too young, but as I listened, I realised it fit Bay, PERFECTLY, it really did. I LOVED Bay's voice, I really did.
Obi's reading voice is clear and even, his voices for ALL the characters are clear and distinct enough for my crappy hearing to make them out. It was my only real criticism in the last book I listened to of his work, the voices were too similar for my crappy hearing to keep up. NOT so here.
The scenes for King and Bay getting up close and personal came over way more. . .what's the word. . . whats. . . .the. . .word. . . intense? maybe? I dunno, can't find that right word, and I hate not being able to do that, but they came across all kinds of different to when I read it. An AMAZING different though, cos Obi got out all the emotions that you don't always pick up when reading. The hitches and dips in the voices, the little noises, they don't always come across well on paper but HEARING them?? Oh yes Sir, intense is the right word!
I stand by what I said in my read review though! I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all!
Watch out for Mr Obi, he's now firmly on my list!!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
First half of this review is from when I READ it, the second half is the audio bit.
Oh it's been a while since I had my Scotty Cade fix, and this proper hit THAT spot!
Bay is, by his own words, pretty much a recluse. Save for promoting his latest book and getting his gambling hit, he doesn't get out much. And when he DOES, he uses his character Jack as his alter ego. Winning escort King in a card game, and coming face to face with the spitting image of Jack knocks Bay off his axis. Just as meeting Bay knocks King off of his. King doesn't see Jack, he sees BAY. He also sees that Bay might be the one to halt his recovery.
I will be honest here, cos ya'll know I'm all about sharing, and tell you, I walked into this one a little wary. I've read a couple of other porn star books and had pretty much decided that I didn't like that particular troupe, and I wouldn't read any more. But this came up, and, I mean, its' Scotty Cade for heaven's sake! So I signed up and I was so very NOT disappointed!
What this one did, what made it stand out, was there was very little "work" time for King, once he and Bay had met. There is a scene before, and one after. But the one after is a huge part of the story; a necessary and integral part.
I loved that it's nearly to the end of the book before Bay and King come together properly. Loved that Bay put his research skills to good use; both for helping King with his recovery and watching all those videos to further his relationship with King.
Loved that while previously only ever having been with women, Bay didn't seem overly perturbed by his attraction to King. OH, he questioned his sexuality, many many times, but he wasn't particularly bothered by it!
There are some difficult topics dealt with here. Bullying and how that effects Bay as an adult. Sex addiction and how that makes King so very wary of what he feels for Bay so very VERY early on. Both topics are dealt with well and with sensitivity, but some readers may struggle with them.
I have just one teeny tiny niggle, but it doesn't affect my rating or my overall enjoyment of this book. It's just ME, being a little bit picky!
I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all! Told you it was me being picky!
Mr Cade has a particular knack of writing with emotion; of being able to make you cry in really random places along with his characters; of being able to grab at your heart strings, tug them, snap them and put them back together again! And I bloody loved this book for that!!
I read this in one sitting, stayed up way past my bedtime to finish this! Loved it!!
5 full and shiny stars!
AUDIO REVIEW
Kenneth Obi narrates. And Mr Obi is growing on me for several reasons. As I see more and more books narrated by him, I can see his skill set growing. A quick search shows far more books that I expected, but the oldest is only November 2017, so he is still fairly new at this, and in the time since I listened to the other one he narrated that is in my library, I can hear a difference.
Obi's voice for Bay was. . . unexpected. I've no idea WHY, but that was my first thought. He sounds almost too young, but as I listened, I realised it fit Bay, PERFECTLY, it really did. I LOVED Bay's voice, I really did.
Obi's reading voice is clear and even, his voices for ALL the characters are clear and distinct enough for my crappy hearing to make them out. It was my only real criticism in the last book I listened to of his work, the voices were too similar for my crappy hearing to keep up. NOT so here.
The scenes for King and Bay getting up close and personal came over way more. . .what's the word. . . whats. . . .the. . .word. . . intense? maybe? I dunno, can't find that right word, and I hate not being able to do that, but they came across all kinds of different to when I read it. An AMAZING different though, cos Obi got out all the emotions that you don't always pick up when reading. The hitches and dips in the voices, the little noises, they don't always come across well on paper but HEARING them?? Oh yes Sir, intense is the right word!
I stand by what I said in my read review though! I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all!
Watch out for Mr Obi, he's now firmly on my list!!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**