Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The year is 1955 and a newly orphaned young man named Lewis (portrayed by the incredibly talented Owen Vaccaro) arrives in the small town of New Zebedee, Michigan to live with his estranged uncle Jonathan (Jack Black). Upon his arrival he discovers that his Uncle Jonathan and his neighbor/friend Florence (Cate Blanchet) are frantically attempting to find a mysterious clock in the wall of the house, with the clock’s dark purpose still a mystery.
The character of Lewis is your stereotypical weakly newcomer, who has no friends and has no athletic ability what-so-ever. This is portrayed in an extremely comical scene in the beginning of the film where his new classmates are picking basketball teams and would rather take a kid on crutches over Lewis. This one scene did an excellent job of making Lewis very endearing and the underdog you want to root for. Not only is Lewis having a hard time fitting in at school, but he is finding his home life is also a bit unsettling. Lewis and his uncle have a few odd interactions, and eventually he finds out his eccentric uncle is actually a warlock, or as Lewis lovingly likes to call him, a man-witch. After they finally have a heartfelt talk and realize they are both “black swans” in life, his uncle reluctantly agrees to train Lewis to become a warlock. The training sets in motion a series of events that not only grow Lewis as a more powerful warlock-in-training, but also as a person. Ultimately, Lewis must use his new-found magical gift and the power of his new family to prevent the clock from carrying out its devious plan.
Eli Roth, better known for his less kid friendly movies such as Hostel and Cabin Fever, did an astounding job of bringing the film to life. While there are certainly intense moments that may not be entirely suitable for younger viewers, it brought enough scares and creepy moments to entertain both young and old alike. The level of intensity is comparable to other kid friendly horror titles such as the Goosebumps series and this film does a good job of mixing up the lighter moments, jump scares and the use of creepy props to bring both a sense of terror and wonder to the screen at the same time. I do have to say, the scene where a bunch of spooky dolls come to life hit a bit too close to home considering my wife has a very large doll collection. After seeing this film, walking into her doll room will never be the same again.
Owen Vaccaro does an extraordinary job in his role of the quirky and nerdy Lewis and Jack Black is his usual zany self in the role of Uncle Jonathan, but he also does a great job with the more serious moments as well. Cate Blanchet, however, was one of the biggest surprises. Her talents are usually seen in dramas and playing more serious characters, so it was nice to see her in a more fun and playful role. All the characters have an excellent chemistry from the moment we are introduced to them, and that captivating chemistry carries through to the very end.
The House with a Clock in Its Walls certainly kept me entertained throughout. The characters and story were interesting, and the suspense and thrills were scary enough to elicit the occasional jump. While I hesitate to say it’s fun for the whole family as once again, some of the scenes may be a little too frightening for younger audiences, it certainly is a great movie for kids who are a bit older or who are not easily spooked. If you are a fan of lighthearted Halloween movies and can overlook a few silly and unnecessary moments, then this film has the potential to be an instant family classic and one that you will likely want to watch every Halloween season. Hmm, suddenly, I have a craving for homemade chocolate chip cookies and when you see the film, you will completely understand why.
The character of Lewis is your stereotypical weakly newcomer, who has no friends and has no athletic ability what-so-ever. This is portrayed in an extremely comical scene in the beginning of the film where his new classmates are picking basketball teams and would rather take a kid on crutches over Lewis. This one scene did an excellent job of making Lewis very endearing and the underdog you want to root for. Not only is Lewis having a hard time fitting in at school, but he is finding his home life is also a bit unsettling. Lewis and his uncle have a few odd interactions, and eventually he finds out his eccentric uncle is actually a warlock, or as Lewis lovingly likes to call him, a man-witch. After they finally have a heartfelt talk and realize they are both “black swans” in life, his uncle reluctantly agrees to train Lewis to become a warlock. The training sets in motion a series of events that not only grow Lewis as a more powerful warlock-in-training, but also as a person. Ultimately, Lewis must use his new-found magical gift and the power of his new family to prevent the clock from carrying out its devious plan.
Eli Roth, better known for his less kid friendly movies such as Hostel and Cabin Fever, did an astounding job of bringing the film to life. While there are certainly intense moments that may not be entirely suitable for younger viewers, it brought enough scares and creepy moments to entertain both young and old alike. The level of intensity is comparable to other kid friendly horror titles such as the Goosebumps series and this film does a good job of mixing up the lighter moments, jump scares and the use of creepy props to bring both a sense of terror and wonder to the screen at the same time. I do have to say, the scene where a bunch of spooky dolls come to life hit a bit too close to home considering my wife has a very large doll collection. After seeing this film, walking into her doll room will never be the same again.
Owen Vaccaro does an extraordinary job in his role of the quirky and nerdy Lewis and Jack Black is his usual zany self in the role of Uncle Jonathan, but he also does a great job with the more serious moments as well. Cate Blanchet, however, was one of the biggest surprises. Her talents are usually seen in dramas and playing more serious characters, so it was nice to see her in a more fun and playful role. All the characters have an excellent chemistry from the moment we are introduced to them, and that captivating chemistry carries through to the very end.
The House with a Clock in Its Walls certainly kept me entertained throughout. The characters and story were interesting, and the suspense and thrills were scary enough to elicit the occasional jump. While I hesitate to say it’s fun for the whole family as once again, some of the scenes may be a little too frightening for younger audiences, it certainly is a great movie for kids who are a bit older or who are not easily spooked. If you are a fan of lighthearted Halloween movies and can overlook a few silly and unnecessary moments, then this film has the potential to be an instant family classic and one that you will likely want to watch every Halloween season. Hmm, suddenly, I have a craving for homemade chocolate chip cookies and when you see the film, you will completely understand why.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Poor Dani!
Coming off the critical and box office success of Hereditary, would writer/director Ari Aster avoid the sophomore slump with his 2nd major feature, Midsommar, I would say that is a resounding YES!
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Little Nightmares II in Video Games
Apr 9, 2021
The incredible story. (3 more)
Great visuals and interactions with items both in the foreground and background.
Brilliant score.
Its gameplay and controls are mostly entertaining.
Some puzzles are difficult to solve without cheating. (2 more)
It is ridiculously difficult at times. Expect to die. A lot.
It is longer than the first game, but still feels short.
A Visually Creepy Masterpiece with a few Minor Flaws
Little Nightmares II is a vast improvement over the original game that still has a few flaws that could be ironed out in a sequel. The first game was creepy and a lot of fun, but it felt incredibly short. It was the type of game you bought, played through quickly, and traded in because it didn’t seem to have much replay value. Although I'm just now reading about the DLC for the game and the hidden ending to Little Nightmares II, but I digress.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Did You See Melody? in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Yikes. This was bad, really bad. This started off as a buddy read with my reading pal Nicki @ The Secret Library, but she couldnt even finish this one
and I dont blame her!
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1951 Director Robert Wise helped create one of the most insightful films of the dawning Science Fiction genre. At that time, the growing theme was the good folks of Earth having to defend ourselves against all manner of evil creatures from beyond.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html