Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Night Inn Hell in Books
Nov 21, 2019
This is the first book in a trilogy about a remote and haunted inn - the Hang Inn - where each book tells the story of how some of the souls came to be trapped there. The bulk of the story is set at the end of the 19th century, with the first and last chapters set in contemporary times and told from the point of view of one of the haunting spirits. In preparing to scare a couple of tourists visiting the notorious haunted in, the narrator tells the reader their story.
Peter and Stella have owned the Hang Inn for several months. The Inn is miles from the nearest town and sits among nearly impassable marshland. Trade is slow and they will soon need to think seriously about giving up the inn. Then they are given an offer they can't refuse by Jason, a police officer in a small and secretive unit that tracks down the worst murderers and serial killers in Victorian England and ensures that they are very quietly disposed of. The government will pay for the Hang Inn to be used for the executions. But this is a secret only a few can know, and Peter cannot even tell Stella what is really going on.
The first infamous murderer is executed and Peter begins to doubt he has made the right decision but it is too late. And when the second murderer arrives the ghost of the first torments both him and Peter. How long can Peter keep the secret and what impact will it have on his relationship with Stella?
This is not a ghost story in the conventional sense. The first murderer does haunt the inn some of the nights but most of the story is taken up the effect the situation has on Peter, Stella and Jason as it turns each of their lives upside down and tests each of them. The secret of the executions reveals deeper and darker secrets and the inner character of each of the main protagonists. There are night time chases across the marshes and murders are described and committed.
The plot twists and turns as each victim brought to the inn tells their own story and this has its inevitable effect on Peter and Stella as well as Jason. The relationship between the three of them changes as time goes on. We know that ultimately one of them will be left haunting the inn, but which one? Only the final climactic scenes reveal this.
The book is an enjoyable read, although the nights when the murderers are held in the inn are a lot more gripping and interesting than the periods between which can seem a little over-long with a lot of introspection from the main characters as they try to deal with what is going on around them (and within them). But this does allow the characters to grow, and the interactions between them and the state of their own minds plays a vital role in everything that happens.
The strength of the book lies in the twin strands of the overall story itself and of the murderers. Each is different and each is portrayed excellently by Powell from evil psychopaths to those who feel their actions are justified. Each tells their story in detail with some deft twists to enable this to happen.
Overall this was an enjoyable novel with enough action and twists to keep the reader's interest throughout.
Rating: Scenes of murder and some sexual references
Peter and Stella have owned the Hang Inn for several months. The Inn is miles from the nearest town and sits among nearly impassable marshland. Trade is slow and they will soon need to think seriously about giving up the inn. Then they are given an offer they can't refuse by Jason, a police officer in a small and secretive unit that tracks down the worst murderers and serial killers in Victorian England and ensures that they are very quietly disposed of. The government will pay for the Hang Inn to be used for the executions. But this is a secret only a few can know, and Peter cannot even tell Stella what is really going on.
The first infamous murderer is executed and Peter begins to doubt he has made the right decision but it is too late. And when the second murderer arrives the ghost of the first torments both him and Peter. How long can Peter keep the secret and what impact will it have on his relationship with Stella?
This is not a ghost story in the conventional sense. The first murderer does haunt the inn some of the nights but most of the story is taken up the effect the situation has on Peter, Stella and Jason as it turns each of their lives upside down and tests each of them. The secret of the executions reveals deeper and darker secrets and the inner character of each of the main protagonists. There are night time chases across the marshes and murders are described and committed.
The plot twists and turns as each victim brought to the inn tells their own story and this has its inevitable effect on Peter and Stella as well as Jason. The relationship between the three of them changes as time goes on. We know that ultimately one of them will be left haunting the inn, but which one? Only the final climactic scenes reveal this.
The book is an enjoyable read, although the nights when the murderers are held in the inn are a lot more gripping and interesting than the periods between which can seem a little over-long with a lot of introspection from the main characters as they try to deal with what is going on around them (and within them). But this does allow the characters to grow, and the interactions between them and the state of their own minds plays a vital role in everything that happens.
The strength of the book lies in the twin strands of the overall story itself and of the murderers. Each is different and each is portrayed excellently by Powell from evil psychopaths to those who feel their actions are justified. Each tells their story in detail with some deft twists to enable this to happen.
Overall this was an enjoyable novel with enough action and twists to keep the reader's interest throughout.
Rating: Scenes of murder and some sexual references
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Darren (1599 KP) rated 8MM (1999) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 8MM starts as we meet private investigator Tom Welles (Cage) who is one of the most respected in the business. His latest job finds him working got Daniel Longdale (Heald) attorney to Mrs Christian (Carter) who finds an unusual film in her late husband safe, one that seems like a snuff film. Tom is hired to investigate whether it is a real tape or just clever piece of art.
Tom’s investigation which he disguises as a missing persons case leads him to Mary Ann Mathews (Powell) who has been missing for years. Learning about her disappearance Tom finds himself delving into the pornographic underworld of Hollywood. Tom recruits Max California (Phoenix) an employee from an adult store to take him into the underworld.
The deeper Tom gets into the world the more leads that get opened for him to investigate as he starts with producer Eddie Poole (Gandolfini) before finding himself in deeper than he could ever have imagined.
8MM takes us into a world we haven’t entered before as we watch how the underworld of porn has turned into the world of snuff. While the investigation is twisted filled and very much what you would expect it to be, it is the idea of the sexual drive from the villains that adds a disturbing factor to it all. We see this with how Tom reacts to everything in the film. I will say this contains a lot of disturbing material that can’t be easily watched but this does help show how far the world can go into darkness.
Actor Review
Nicolas Cage: Tom Welles is a well-respected private investigator, his latest job brings him into the seedy underworld of the pornographic as he looks for a missing person that could have been a victim of a snuff film. He must use all his skills to get into the world where he learns the shocking truth. Nicolas is good in this role where we get to see him in a dark situation compared to action star he has become.tom
Joaquin Phoenix: Max California works in an adult story, he has connections to the pornographic underworld as he teams up with Tom to uncover the truth about the snuff world. Joaquin is good in this role showing he is willing to take on the stranger roles.mike
James Gandolfini: Eddie Poole is an adult film producer that Tom starts investigating, he is as seedy as them come but does know something about the missing girl. James is good in the supporting role but we just don’t see enough of his character.
Peter Stormare: Dino Velvet is the pornographic producer that deals with all over the extreme porn, he is above Eddie in the chain that could well be the man behind the film Tom is investigating. Peter is solid in this role you could easily see him in but we don’t see enough of him.
Support Cast: 8MM has a supporting cast that all help the final outcome of the film, we have people who have been effected in their own way.
Director Review: Joel Schumacher – Joel gives us an intense mystery thriller that pushes the boundaries of right and wrong.
Crime: 8MM takes us into the underworld of the porn industry where the snuff movies do get made by the people involved.
Mystery: 8MM does keep us wondering what is happening and who will be involved.
Thriller: 8MM manages to keep us on the edge throughout the film.
Settings: 8MM takes us to all the underworld areas to show how the perverts of the world can find what they want.
Special Effects: 8MM has good effects to show the kills being involved.
Suggestion: 8MM is one to try, I do think it will be difficult to watch for certain people. (Try It)
Best Part: Eddie has to pay.
Worst Part: Hard to watch.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Sadly, Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 3 Minutes
Tagline: You are never prepared for the truth
Trivia: The enema porno film seen at the porn swap meet is a genuine S&M film that was heavily edited for inclusion in the main movie.
Overall: Difficult to watch but good watch throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/11/franchise-weekend-8mm-1999/
Tom’s investigation which he disguises as a missing persons case leads him to Mary Ann Mathews (Powell) who has been missing for years. Learning about her disappearance Tom finds himself delving into the pornographic underworld of Hollywood. Tom recruits Max California (Phoenix) an employee from an adult store to take him into the underworld.
The deeper Tom gets into the world the more leads that get opened for him to investigate as he starts with producer Eddie Poole (Gandolfini) before finding himself in deeper than he could ever have imagined.
8MM takes us into a world we haven’t entered before as we watch how the underworld of porn has turned into the world of snuff. While the investigation is twisted filled and very much what you would expect it to be, it is the idea of the sexual drive from the villains that adds a disturbing factor to it all. We see this with how Tom reacts to everything in the film. I will say this contains a lot of disturbing material that can’t be easily watched but this does help show how far the world can go into darkness.
Actor Review
Nicolas Cage: Tom Welles is a well-respected private investigator, his latest job brings him into the seedy underworld of the pornographic as he looks for a missing person that could have been a victim of a snuff film. He must use all his skills to get into the world where he learns the shocking truth. Nicolas is good in this role where we get to see him in a dark situation compared to action star he has become.tom
Joaquin Phoenix: Max California works in an adult story, he has connections to the pornographic underworld as he teams up with Tom to uncover the truth about the snuff world. Joaquin is good in this role showing he is willing to take on the stranger roles.mike
James Gandolfini: Eddie Poole is an adult film producer that Tom starts investigating, he is as seedy as them come but does know something about the missing girl. James is good in the supporting role but we just don’t see enough of his character.
Peter Stormare: Dino Velvet is the pornographic producer that deals with all over the extreme porn, he is above Eddie in the chain that could well be the man behind the film Tom is investigating. Peter is solid in this role you could easily see him in but we don’t see enough of him.
Support Cast: 8MM has a supporting cast that all help the final outcome of the film, we have people who have been effected in their own way.
Director Review: Joel Schumacher – Joel gives us an intense mystery thriller that pushes the boundaries of right and wrong.
Crime: 8MM takes us into the underworld of the porn industry where the snuff movies do get made by the people involved.
Mystery: 8MM does keep us wondering what is happening and who will be involved.
Thriller: 8MM manages to keep us on the edge throughout the film.
Settings: 8MM takes us to all the underworld areas to show how the perverts of the world can find what they want.
Special Effects: 8MM has good effects to show the kills being involved.
Suggestion: 8MM is one to try, I do think it will be difficult to watch for certain people. (Try It)
Best Part: Eddie has to pay.
Worst Part: Hard to watch.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Sadly, Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 3 Minutes
Tagline: You are never prepared for the truth
Trivia: The enema porno film seen at the porn swap meet is a genuine S&M film that was heavily edited for inclusion in the main movie.
Overall: Difficult to watch but good watch throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/11/franchise-weekend-8mm-1999/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
Jun 1, 2022
The very definition of "Summer Flick"
There is absolutely no denying it - TOP GUN: MAVERICK is the very definition of a “Summer Blockbuster” movie - the kind of film that will appeal to a wide variety of audiences who want nothing more than to escape into a world of heroes (and villains), good vs. evil, with lots of fast chases and things exploding.
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
