Search
Making Icons: Repetition and the Female Image in Japanese Cinema, 1945-1964
Book
One distinctive feature of post-war Japanese cinema is the frequent recurrence of imagistic and...
Historical Interplay in French Music and Culture
Book
This edited volume presents a selected history of French music and culture, but one with a dynamic...
Activist Documentary Film in Pakistan: The Emergence of a Cinema of Accountability
Book
This book, the first academic book on Pakistani documentary cinema, traces the development of...
Eggggg - The Platform Puker
Games and Entertainment
App
Eggggg is a ridiculous two-touch platform game about vomit. It's an action packed and crazy...
Vanity Fair
8.3
Rate It
TV Show
A new adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray’s, Vanity Fair, has been commissioned as a...
period drama
Auntie Mame
Book
Inspired by his own eccentric aunt, Patrick Dennis's Auntie Mame is a madcap comedy, published with...
Awix (3310 KP) rated Viy (Spirit of Evil) (1967) in Movies
Sep 21, 2021
Soviet horror movie from the 1960s rather unexpectedly turns out to be a close spiritual cousin of the kind of films that Hammer et al were making in the west at the same time. A trainee priest finds himself compelled to spend three nights reading prayers over the body of (supposedly) a wealthy landowner's daughter - but the corpse bears a striking resemblance to that of a witch he earlier killed...
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
May 18, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Thor: The Dark World is one of a few MCU movies that I hadn't seen many times, and never since its' initial release. It has the reputation of been one of the weakest/worst entries in the 'continuity' however my memory of it was that it was okay. Having watched 'Endgame ' (several times!) and seeing that movie revisit a segment of the God of Thunders second solo outing I decided to give it another viewing.
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Stranger (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I can't say that this is a horror. It's a little bit creepy. It's also somehow engaging, despite it not having that horror aspect you're expecting.
Domhnall Gleeson is an interesting leading actor. He plays the roll well and it feels fitting for the period. But for me Will Poulter really was the best performance. Entirely believable and quite possibly the best thing I've seen him do. I can't say that I was particularly excited about anyone else in this.
The music, or the lack thereof, is very atmospheric. It's really noticable and brings that creepy sense just when it's needed. The visuals get the atmosphere just right too. There's a fantastic slightly out of focus (lets call it squiggly feeling) shot that was used when the supernatural was in the air and it worked intriguingly well.
At the time of writing this I have been out of the screening for six hours... and for six hours I've been annoyed with how the film ended. I've been scouring the internet for a full synopsis of the novel, and while the whole thing seems to match up well, the ending does have a slightly different spin... or it is just handled really weirdly in the film... I really don't know but what I can say is that I came out feeling incredibly unsatisfied.
Based on the book The Little Stranger by Sarah Walters.
What should you do?
I'm tempted to say read the book instead of going to see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Can I take home Will Poulter?
Domhnall Gleeson is an interesting leading actor. He plays the roll well and it feels fitting for the period. But for me Will Poulter really was the best performance. Entirely believable and quite possibly the best thing I've seen him do. I can't say that I was particularly excited about anyone else in this.
The music, or the lack thereof, is very atmospheric. It's really noticable and brings that creepy sense just when it's needed. The visuals get the atmosphere just right too. There's a fantastic slightly out of focus (lets call it squiggly feeling) shot that was used when the supernatural was in the air and it worked intriguingly well.
At the time of writing this I have been out of the screening for six hours... and for six hours I've been annoyed with how the film ended. I've been scouring the internet for a full synopsis of the novel, and while the whole thing seems to match up well, the ending does have a slightly different spin... or it is just handled really weirdly in the film... I really don't know but what I can say is that I came out feeling incredibly unsatisfied.
Based on the book The Little Stranger by Sarah Walters.
What should you do?
I'm tempted to say read the book instead of going to see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Can I take home Will Poulter?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Apr 15, 2018
Stellar
A group of four armed with special proton packs come together to protect Manhattan from crazy supernatural forces that have taken hold of the city.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.