Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Unrest (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For many medical school students the most daunting class they face early in their studies is that of Gross Anatomy. The class which introduces aspiring doctors to their first bodies, as well as the reality and complexity of the human anatomy is often seen as a make or break moment for the challenging studies that lay ahead.
In the film Unrest Writer/Director/Producer Jason Todd Ipson follows a group of new students in a Gross Anatomy class. At first the students are shocked by the disfigured cadaver in front of them, but soon begin the dissection they are required to do.
The appearance of the corpse they are working on becomes a source of fixation for one of the students named Allison (Corri English), who becomes convinced that something is not right with the body they are working on, as something tells her that things are not as they seem.
Allison’s concerns are dismissed as her being overwhelmed by her first encounter with a body, and she is told that her concerns will soon pass. Soon after, one of the dissection group is affected by a freak accident, and Allison becomes convinced that there are evil forces at work, and that nobody will be safe until the mystery behind the corpse is settled.
As the body count rises, Allison and her friend Brian (Scot Davis), face a race against the clock and the supernatural to find the cause of the unrest and make things right, before they end up the next victims of a vengeful specter.
Unrest is a very impressive debut for Ipson, who himself was a promising surgeon before turning his talents to directing. The film is well paced and has plenty of tension and suspense without resorting to the clichéd horror staples that have become all too common.
The plot is refreshingly original and deeper than most films in this genre attempt to achieve, as its complexity is deceiving simply. The film can be taken as a simple scare fest, but for those willing to look beneath the surface, there are deeper layers to the film that tackle areas such as the afterlife, intuition, possession, second sight, and the supernatural. While all of those have been covered before in various films, few have ever combined them in such an intelligent fashion that allows the audience to reach their own conclusions on the topics the film introduces.
The cast is solid especially Davis and English who take what could easily be stock characters and infuse a sense of purpose which helps the audience relate to them and their situation.
While the film might have what appears to some to be plot holes, the film is actually a clever examination of the spirit and afterlife, and delivers the goods. While much has been made about the alleged use of real body parts in the film, Ipson is careful not to let his film become a gratuitous gore fest and uses blood and carnage only in the amounts necessary to propel the story.
Unrest is a very solid effort that marks the emergence of a talent to be watched and will delight fans of the genre who want some intelligence with their horror.
In the film Unrest Writer/Director/Producer Jason Todd Ipson follows a group of new students in a Gross Anatomy class. At first the students are shocked by the disfigured cadaver in front of them, but soon begin the dissection they are required to do.
The appearance of the corpse they are working on becomes a source of fixation for one of the students named Allison (Corri English), who becomes convinced that something is not right with the body they are working on, as something tells her that things are not as they seem.
Allison’s concerns are dismissed as her being overwhelmed by her first encounter with a body, and she is told that her concerns will soon pass. Soon after, one of the dissection group is affected by a freak accident, and Allison becomes convinced that there are evil forces at work, and that nobody will be safe until the mystery behind the corpse is settled.
As the body count rises, Allison and her friend Brian (Scot Davis), face a race against the clock and the supernatural to find the cause of the unrest and make things right, before they end up the next victims of a vengeful specter.
Unrest is a very impressive debut for Ipson, who himself was a promising surgeon before turning his talents to directing. The film is well paced and has plenty of tension and suspense without resorting to the clichéd horror staples that have become all too common.
The plot is refreshingly original and deeper than most films in this genre attempt to achieve, as its complexity is deceiving simply. The film can be taken as a simple scare fest, but for those willing to look beneath the surface, there are deeper layers to the film that tackle areas such as the afterlife, intuition, possession, second sight, and the supernatural. While all of those have been covered before in various films, few have ever combined them in such an intelligent fashion that allows the audience to reach their own conclusions on the topics the film introduces.
The cast is solid especially Davis and English who take what could easily be stock characters and infuse a sense of purpose which helps the audience relate to them and their situation.
While the film might have what appears to some to be plot holes, the film is actually a clever examination of the spirit and afterlife, and delivers the goods. While much has been made about the alleged use of real body parts in the film, Ipson is careful not to let his film become a gratuitous gore fest and uses blood and carnage only in the amounts necessary to propel the story.
Unrest is a very solid effort that marks the emergence of a talent to be watched and will delight fans of the genre who want some intelligence with their horror.
Cosmic Cabaret
Rosalie Redd, Jayne Fury, C.J. Cade, Kat Vancil, Blaire Edens, Diana Rivis, Tessa McFionn, Dena Garson, Selene Grace Silver, Cailin Briste, Athena Grayson , Jenna Lincoln and Kerry Adrienne
8.0
Rate It
Book
Where Hearts Collide in the Greatest Show in Space Join us aboard Blue Star Line’s crown jewel,...
Science_Fiction Romance Anthology
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Magicbricks Property Search
Business and Lifestyle
App
It’s Stunning, Smart & Superior- MagicBricks iPhone app. MagicBricks iPhone app is an...
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Series of Unfortunate Events - Season 1 in TV
Jul 26, 2017
The latest adaptation of the thirteen books comprising ‘A Series of Unfortunate Events’ makes its way onto Netflix, the last being the 2004 film starring Jim Carrey. I haven’t read any of the books, or seen the movie. However my daughter has, and she loves them (the books, not so much the movie). So, we sat down together to watch season 1, which covers the first four books in the series, with two episodes devoted to each book.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Girl Before in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here: https://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/review-the-girl-before-by-j-p-delaney/
<b><i>Please make a list of every possession you consider essential to your life.</b></i>
One Folgate Street is a minimalist house built by the mysterious, controlling and handsome Edward Monkford. To be granted lease, you must fill in a laborious questionnaire and attend a face-to-face meeting with Edward himself, and even then, you’re unlikely to be approved. There are a large number of rules you have to abide by when you live in the house, such as, no books (?!?!?!), no rugs, no curtains, and no leaving things out, such as clothes, toiletries etc, to name a few. You must also open your home for tours every so often and complete various questionnaires/assessments throughout your stay.
So, I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking “who the hell would agree to that?” but as it happens, two women choose to live at One Folgate Street. Thanks to its low rent and dishy architect, both Jane and Emma are happy putting up with all the rules. Jane is the girl from now, and Emma is the girl before. Both women are troubled and both begin a relationship with architect Edward.
What follows is a novel full of mystery and sex. If you’re also not into the whole “daddy” thing then this won’t be for you.
Starting off this book, I was very worried I was going to hate it, because I’d seen a lot of people say the focus on kinky sex as a bit left field and overpowering to the plot. But, I managed to get over that when it started to appear in the story. In my opinion, it wasn’t as bad as many people had made it out to be and in any case, you can always skip over it. I thought it was going to go full 50 Shades at some moments, but it managed to avoid any of the scenes becoming too tactless.
The mystery of “the girl before” is certainly intriguing and kept me hooked (for the first half, at least). I liked the way this was set out as Emma (before) and Jane (now) and how the chapters often mirrored each other so we could see the similarities in each of the tenants lives and relationships with Edward.
What I didn’t like about this book was the characters, which I’m kind of assuming was the goal by Delaney? If not, then he/she (does anyone know and can inform me on their gender?) is pretty terrible at creating characters. Although Edward is set up to be our “villain”, I found Emma to be the most dislikable character, even after all was said and done. She was manipulative, unnecessarily forward, obnoxious and total putty in Edward’s hands. Women who can’t act on their own accord because of a man infuriate me, which is probably why I didn’t get on with this novel that well, as it’s kind of what the whole plot is about. I like my women strong and independent!
The ending of this novel, no word of a lie, infuriated me. What a total cop out. People are comparing this to <i>Gone Girl</i>, LOL. The conclusion to this novel is the most overused and uninspired “twist” you can ever imagine. What a way to ruin a perfectly OK novel.
Thanks to Netgalley and Quercus Books for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
<b><i>Please make a list of every possession you consider essential to your life.</b></i>
One Folgate Street is a minimalist house built by the mysterious, controlling and handsome Edward Monkford. To be granted lease, you must fill in a laborious questionnaire and attend a face-to-face meeting with Edward himself, and even then, you’re unlikely to be approved. There are a large number of rules you have to abide by when you live in the house, such as, no books (?!?!?!), no rugs, no curtains, and no leaving things out, such as clothes, toiletries etc, to name a few. You must also open your home for tours every so often and complete various questionnaires/assessments throughout your stay.
So, I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking “who the hell would agree to that?” but as it happens, two women choose to live at One Folgate Street. Thanks to its low rent and dishy architect, both Jane and Emma are happy putting up with all the rules. Jane is the girl from now, and Emma is the girl before. Both women are troubled and both begin a relationship with architect Edward.
What follows is a novel full of mystery and sex. If you’re also not into the whole “daddy” thing then this won’t be for you.
Starting off this book, I was very worried I was going to hate it, because I’d seen a lot of people say the focus on kinky sex as a bit left field and overpowering to the plot. But, I managed to get over that when it started to appear in the story. In my opinion, it wasn’t as bad as many people had made it out to be and in any case, you can always skip over it. I thought it was going to go full 50 Shades at some moments, but it managed to avoid any of the scenes becoming too tactless.
The mystery of “the girl before” is certainly intriguing and kept me hooked (for the first half, at least). I liked the way this was set out as Emma (before) and Jane (now) and how the chapters often mirrored each other so we could see the similarities in each of the tenants lives and relationships with Edward.
What I didn’t like about this book was the characters, which I’m kind of assuming was the goal by Delaney? If not, then he/she (does anyone know and can inform me on their gender?) is pretty terrible at creating characters. Although Edward is set up to be our “villain”, I found Emma to be the most dislikable character, even after all was said and done. She was manipulative, unnecessarily forward, obnoxious and total putty in Edward’s hands. Women who can’t act on their own accord because of a man infuriate me, which is probably why I didn’t get on with this novel that well, as it’s kind of what the whole plot is about. I like my women strong and independent!
The ending of this novel, no word of a lie, infuriated me. What a total cop out. People are comparing this to <i>Gone Girl</i>, LOL. The conclusion to this novel is the most overused and uninspired “twist” you can ever imagine. What a way to ruin a perfectly OK novel.
Thanks to Netgalley and Quercus Books for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated After Always in Books
Sep 22, 2018
Interesting Plot (3 more)
Beautiful Prose
Likable Characters
Held my Attention Throughout
Pacing all over the place (2 more)
Ending was too easy
Needed more character background story info
A Decent Spooky Read
There was something about the synopsis about After Always by Barbara J. Hancock that caught my attention, so when the opportunity came about to review it, I jumped at the chance. I'm glad I did.
I felt like the pacing was a little all over the place in After Always. There were some places where the pacing dragged, and in other places, the pacing sped up too quickly where I was lost about what was going on. However, there were also some places where the pacing was perfect. Regardless, After Always held my attention throughout.
I enjoyed the plot. Lydia gets sent to an old inn for music lessons after her boyfriend dies in a tragic accident in the hopes she will start to heal. Lydia had been to the inn before with her mother when she was three. However, there is something sinister afoot at the inn. Lydia, alone with the intriguing Michael, must figure out what it is before it claims them both as well as the inn. Along the way, we learn more about Lydia's relationship with Tristan which isn't exactly what it appeared to be. I didn't feel that there were any major plot twists. Perhaps there are a few minor ones. This doesn't make the plot any less enjoyable though. I had many questions, but they were all answered towards the end of the book. I did feel like the ending was a bit too easy. I won't elaborate because I don't want to give any spoilers away.
The world building was written very well. The author, Barbara J. Hancock, is a master with words. I enjoyed reading about the world Miss Hancock had created for her characters. It was easy to imagine myself as a character in After Always. I could easily imagine the inn where all the action takes place.
I liked the characters in After Always. However, I would have enjoyed reading more about the background of Lydia. I would have liked to see how she was right before her relationship with Tristan. I would have also liked to read more about her relationship with Tristan. Lydia does speak about their relationship, but I found myself craving more information about it. I would have also liked to read more about Octavia's and Jericho's relationship a bit more. It would have been interesting to read more about the courting days between them as well as how their marriage was at the beginning. We do get a glimpse at Michael's family history which was nice. My favorite character in After Always was Hannah. I just felt like I could relate to her the most even if she isn't mentioned as much throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include dating abuse, death, violence, ghostly possession, and very mild swearing in a few places throughout the book.
Overall, After Always is a decent spooky read. It is written beautifully and has an interesting plot as well as likable characters. I would recommend After Always by Barbara J. Hancock to those aged 15+
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of After Always by Barbara J. Hancock in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt like the pacing was a little all over the place in After Always. There were some places where the pacing dragged, and in other places, the pacing sped up too quickly where I was lost about what was going on. However, there were also some places where the pacing was perfect. Regardless, After Always held my attention throughout.
I enjoyed the plot. Lydia gets sent to an old inn for music lessons after her boyfriend dies in a tragic accident in the hopes she will start to heal. Lydia had been to the inn before with her mother when she was three. However, there is something sinister afoot at the inn. Lydia, alone with the intriguing Michael, must figure out what it is before it claims them both as well as the inn. Along the way, we learn more about Lydia's relationship with Tristan which isn't exactly what it appeared to be. I didn't feel that there were any major plot twists. Perhaps there are a few minor ones. This doesn't make the plot any less enjoyable though. I had many questions, but they were all answered towards the end of the book. I did feel like the ending was a bit too easy. I won't elaborate because I don't want to give any spoilers away.
The world building was written very well. The author, Barbara J. Hancock, is a master with words. I enjoyed reading about the world Miss Hancock had created for her characters. It was easy to imagine myself as a character in After Always. I could easily imagine the inn where all the action takes place.
I liked the characters in After Always. However, I would have enjoyed reading more about the background of Lydia. I would have liked to see how she was right before her relationship with Tristan. I would have also liked to read more about her relationship with Tristan. Lydia does speak about their relationship, but I found myself craving more information about it. I would have also liked to read more about Octavia's and Jericho's relationship a bit more. It would have been interesting to read more about the courting days between them as well as how their marriage was at the beginning. We do get a glimpse at Michael's family history which was nice. My favorite character in After Always was Hannah. I just felt like I could relate to her the most even if she isn't mentioned as much throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include dating abuse, death, violence, ghostly possession, and very mild swearing in a few places throughout the book.
Overall, After Always is a decent spooky read. It is written beautifully and has an interesting plot as well as likable characters. I would recommend After Always by Barbara J. Hancock to those aged 15+
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of After Always by Barbara J. Hancock in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Death Wish (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Dr. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis), life is good but at a crossroads. With his birthday coming up, his daughter Jordan (Camila Morrone) is preparing to leave their affluent Chicago home to start college in New York.
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Making movies based on video games has had a dubious history when it comes to cinematic success. While “Resident Evil” and “Warcraft” found decent success, films such as “DOOM”, “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, and others crashed and burned hard at the box office. The reason for this was explained to me once by Director Uwe Boll who has crafted numerous titles based on video games and has suffered harsh feedback from fans and critics as a result.
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Salt to the Sea in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
“We survivors are not the true witnesses. The true witnesses, those in possession of the unspeakable truth, are the drowned, the dead, the disappeared.” </i>– Primo Levi
World War Two has got to be the most well known and talked about period of history. Despite it not even being a century ago, it is already taught in schools around the globe. However a lot of events are omitted from our history books. A lot of people, including those alive at the time, have no idea of some of the situations Europeans found themselves in. Ruta Sepetys, despite having only previously written two novels, has become known for her stories about the lesser-known aspects of the Second World War. Her third book, <i>Salt to the Sea</i>, is no different.
In 1945 things were not looking great for the people living in Germany. Their greatest concern was the invading Russian army, resulting in thousands of Germans evacuating their hometowns. Four characters in their late teens/early twenties narrate <i>Salt to the Sea</i>: Joana, Florian, Emilia and Alfred. Their varied nationalities – Lithuanian, Prussian, Polish and German – help provide a range of opinions about the war, but regardless of who they believe to be the enemy, whether it be German or Russian or both, they are all figuratively in the same boat.
Joana, Emilia and Florian meet each other amongst a group of refugees trekking to freedom. A lot of trust is involved especially as no one is willing to reveal his or her true story. It is clear that each character is hiding something personal, something to do with the war, yet they all rely on and help each other to continue on their journey.
Naturally, being a war story there is masses of death and destruction. Set in January, the weather conditions are just as dangerous as the Russian soldiers. It is the end of the novel that contains the most shocking of events: a sinking of a ship that kills 9000 passengers. The most severe maritime disaster ever, yet it is doubtful that readers already know about it.
Despite being a work of fiction, Sepetys sticks to the facts in her heavily researched novel. She shocks the reader with the severity of the situation, and may even bring some to tears with the outcome. She has not sugar coated anything. Some storytellers save the innocents from harm, but this was not the case in <i>Salt to the Sea</i>. In war, no one can choose who lives and who dies. Millions of innocent people perish.
The short chapters keep the story flowing quickly. It is shocking, gripping and engaging. There is a brief notion of romance but this is not focused on and thus does not detract from the factual storyline. There was a hinted connection between characters in this novel and those in <i>Between Shades of Grey </i>– one of Sepetys’ earlier novels, however this is not a sequel or part of a series.
With the help of maps showing the difference between Europe now and Europe in 1945,<i> Salt to the Sea</i> is highly educational. Although aimed at young adults it is suitable for older generations as well. Whilst containing shocking content, you are certain to fall in love with Sepetys’ writing.
“We survivors are not the true witnesses. The true witnesses, those in possession of the unspeakable truth, are the drowned, the dead, the disappeared.” </i>– Primo Levi
World War Two has got to be the most well known and talked about period of history. Despite it not even being a century ago, it is already taught in schools around the globe. However a lot of events are omitted from our history books. A lot of people, including those alive at the time, have no idea of some of the situations Europeans found themselves in. Ruta Sepetys, despite having only previously written two novels, has become known for her stories about the lesser-known aspects of the Second World War. Her third book, <i>Salt to the Sea</i>, is no different.
In 1945 things were not looking great for the people living in Germany. Their greatest concern was the invading Russian army, resulting in thousands of Germans evacuating their hometowns. Four characters in their late teens/early twenties narrate <i>Salt to the Sea</i>: Joana, Florian, Emilia and Alfred. Their varied nationalities – Lithuanian, Prussian, Polish and German – help provide a range of opinions about the war, but regardless of who they believe to be the enemy, whether it be German or Russian or both, they are all figuratively in the same boat.
Joana, Emilia and Florian meet each other amongst a group of refugees trekking to freedom. A lot of trust is involved especially as no one is willing to reveal his or her true story. It is clear that each character is hiding something personal, something to do with the war, yet they all rely on and help each other to continue on their journey.
Naturally, being a war story there is masses of death and destruction. Set in January, the weather conditions are just as dangerous as the Russian soldiers. It is the end of the novel that contains the most shocking of events: a sinking of a ship that kills 9000 passengers. The most severe maritime disaster ever, yet it is doubtful that readers already know about it.
Despite being a work of fiction, Sepetys sticks to the facts in her heavily researched novel. She shocks the reader with the severity of the situation, and may even bring some to tears with the outcome. She has not sugar coated anything. Some storytellers save the innocents from harm, but this was not the case in <i>Salt to the Sea</i>. In war, no one can choose who lives and who dies. Millions of innocent people perish.
The short chapters keep the story flowing quickly. It is shocking, gripping and engaging. There is a brief notion of romance but this is not focused on and thus does not detract from the factual storyline. There was a hinted connection between characters in this novel and those in <i>Between Shades of Grey </i>– one of Sepetys’ earlier novels, however this is not a sequel or part of a series.
With the help of maps showing the difference between Europe now and Europe in 1945,<i> Salt to the Sea</i> is highly educational. Although aimed at young adults it is suitable for older generations as well. Whilst containing shocking content, you are certain to fall in love with Sepetys’ writing.