Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Fred (860 KP) rated Most Haunted in TV
Jan 31, 2019
This is still on?
I am writing this review, as I could not believe this show is still airing. Although none of you probably even heard of it, or are of the misfortune to have only seen the newer episodes
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated Bad Dreams (1988) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Bad Dreams
Cast: Bruce Abbott (Re-Animator; Bride of Re-Animator); Jennifer Rubin (Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)
Release date: April 8th 1988
Blu-ray release date: 23rd July 2018
Genre: Horror
Directed by: Andrew Fleming
Run time: 84 mins (approx)
'When Cynthia wakes up, she'll wish she were dead...'
Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) wakes up from her coma after 13 years. She was the only survivor of a Jonestown-style suicide cult, a suicide-by-fire pact, instigated by Unity Fields cult leader Franklin Harris (Richard Lynch). We see in a later flashback that she began to retreat after the fire was started, she was just far enough away from the source of the resulting explosion that she lived, badly hurt, but alive.
When she wakes, she begins to have nightmarish visions of Harris, burnt and bloodied from the fire that destroyed all bar herself at Unity Fields.
Cynthia is inserted into a group therapy session, for borderline personality disorder treatment, run by Dr Alex Karmen (Bruce Abbott). Here she meets an eclectic bunch of individuals, including masochist Ralph (Dean Cameron), who takes an instant shine to Cynthia. The film is worth a watch for Dean Cameron's performance, he portrays a very likable psychotic patient perfectly.
The first of Dr Karmen's patients to die is Lana (E.G.Daily). an upset Cynthia has a flashback/vision of herself being baptized into the cult of Unity fields, a vision that takes a dark twist when Harris begins holding her underwater, forcing her under until she drowns, Cynthia horrified, realizes this is actually Lana. Afterwards, with Lana's body below him, Harris turns to Cynthia and says "I warned you Cynthia, I warned you someone else would take your place". Cynthia then 'wakes up' and hears a scream. Running into the pool room, she is confronted with the lifeless body of Lana, who has drowned in the pool - much like in her vision.
Each of the group continue to meet their end, one by one, by Harris (or so it would seem). Cynthia continues to have horrendous visions of him, his face all burnt up from the fire, and then the next person meets a grisly demise. She is convinced it's Harris, she is convinced he has returned to take her, and is punishing her and those around her for fleeing the fire.
This is a very well acted, intense and thought provoking film. It doesn't rely on gore and shocks to garner reaction, it relies primarily on the interactions and relationships of the characters, as well as the increasing tension and fear within Cynthia and the remaining patients of Dr Karmen. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Cynthia and Dr Karmen, Bruce Abbot portrays a very sweet and empathetic character, who cares a great deal about his patients, especially Cynthia who he bonds with closely.
I very much enjoyed the end twist of the film, up on a rooftop, when we are shocked to find out that it is actually Karmen's superior, Dr Berrisford, who has been dosing the patients with psychogenic drugs to make the patients unstable and suicidal. All this just to corroborate his research - makes you wonder how much of this actually goes on in institutions. Karmen had suspected something was amiss with Berrisford for a while, and he confronts him after he sends Cynthia to isolation - "you want this, you want her on the edge, you've wanted this from the beginning".
We are then left to decide for ourselves whether Cynthia's visions of Harris and the resulting deaths of the patients were actually suicides caused by Dr Berrisford's drug cocktails, or was Harris actually there, was he he really tormenting Cynthia and murdering everyone around her in a twisted revenge for her survival.
Special Features:
Duel format collectors edition includes the High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) and the Standard Definition DVD version of the movie.
Interview with director Andrew Fleming.
Interview with actress Jennifer.
Interview with Spencer Murphy - Bad Dreams fan and University Lecturer.
Audio commentary with Nathaniel Thompson and Tim Greer (Mondo-Digital.com).
Theatrical trailer.
Reversible sleeve with alternate artwork.
The blu-ray includes a booklet from 88 Films, looking back at the 30 essential North American slasher movies from 1960-89.
I love this film, I'm extremely impressed with the Blu-ray from 88 Films' Slash Classics Collection.
Great special features, well worth a watch and a listen.
5/5 for the film and 3/5 for the features (A Bruce Abbott interview would have made it perfect)
If you haven't seen this, give it a watch, it's a horror classic!!
Lesley-Ann, the Housewife of Horror
Cast: Bruce Abbott (Re-Animator; Bride of Re-Animator); Jennifer Rubin (Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)
Release date: April 8th 1988
Blu-ray release date: 23rd July 2018
Genre: Horror
Directed by: Andrew Fleming
Run time: 84 mins (approx)
'When Cynthia wakes up, she'll wish she were dead...'
Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) wakes up from her coma after 13 years. She was the only survivor of a Jonestown-style suicide cult, a suicide-by-fire pact, instigated by Unity Fields cult leader Franklin Harris (Richard Lynch). We see in a later flashback that she began to retreat after the fire was started, she was just far enough away from the source of the resulting explosion that she lived, badly hurt, but alive.
When she wakes, she begins to have nightmarish visions of Harris, burnt and bloodied from the fire that destroyed all bar herself at Unity Fields.
Cynthia is inserted into a group therapy session, for borderline personality disorder treatment, run by Dr Alex Karmen (Bruce Abbott). Here she meets an eclectic bunch of individuals, including masochist Ralph (Dean Cameron), who takes an instant shine to Cynthia. The film is worth a watch for Dean Cameron's performance, he portrays a very likable psychotic patient perfectly.
The first of Dr Karmen's patients to die is Lana (E.G.Daily). an upset Cynthia has a flashback/vision of herself being baptized into the cult of Unity fields, a vision that takes a dark twist when Harris begins holding her underwater, forcing her under until she drowns, Cynthia horrified, realizes this is actually Lana. Afterwards, with Lana's body below him, Harris turns to Cynthia and says "I warned you Cynthia, I warned you someone else would take your place". Cynthia then 'wakes up' and hears a scream. Running into the pool room, she is confronted with the lifeless body of Lana, who has drowned in the pool - much like in her vision.
Each of the group continue to meet their end, one by one, by Harris (or so it would seem). Cynthia continues to have horrendous visions of him, his face all burnt up from the fire, and then the next person meets a grisly demise. She is convinced it's Harris, she is convinced he has returned to take her, and is punishing her and those around her for fleeing the fire.
This is a very well acted, intense and thought provoking film. It doesn't rely on gore and shocks to garner reaction, it relies primarily on the interactions and relationships of the characters, as well as the increasing tension and fear within Cynthia and the remaining patients of Dr Karmen. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Cynthia and Dr Karmen, Bruce Abbot portrays a very sweet and empathetic character, who cares a great deal about his patients, especially Cynthia who he bonds with closely.
I very much enjoyed the end twist of the film, up on a rooftop, when we are shocked to find out that it is actually Karmen's superior, Dr Berrisford, who has been dosing the patients with psychogenic drugs to make the patients unstable and suicidal. All this just to corroborate his research - makes you wonder how much of this actually goes on in institutions. Karmen had suspected something was amiss with Berrisford for a while, and he confronts him after he sends Cynthia to isolation - "you want this, you want her on the edge, you've wanted this from the beginning".
We are then left to decide for ourselves whether Cynthia's visions of Harris and the resulting deaths of the patients were actually suicides caused by Dr Berrisford's drug cocktails, or was Harris actually there, was he he really tormenting Cynthia and murdering everyone around her in a twisted revenge for her survival.
Special Features:
Duel format collectors edition includes the High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) and the Standard Definition DVD version of the movie.
Interview with director Andrew Fleming.
Interview with actress Jennifer.
Interview with Spencer Murphy - Bad Dreams fan and University Lecturer.
Audio commentary with Nathaniel Thompson and Tim Greer (Mondo-Digital.com).
Theatrical trailer.
Reversible sleeve with alternate artwork.
The blu-ray includes a booklet from 88 Films, looking back at the 30 essential North American slasher movies from 1960-89.
I love this film, I'm extremely impressed with the Blu-ray from 88 Films' Slash Classics Collection.
Great special features, well worth a watch and a listen.
5/5 for the film and 3/5 for the features (A Bruce Abbott interview would have made it perfect)
If you haven't seen this, give it a watch, it's a horror classic!!
Lesley-Ann, the Housewife of Horror
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftershock (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftershock starts as Gringo (Roth), Ariel (Levy) and Pollo (Martinez) travelling around Chile, they party over all night where they meet three girls Monica (Osvart), Irina (Yarovenko) and Kylie (Izzo). Going for one last party the six new friends find themselves in the middle of an earthquake, one seriously injured and an impending tsunami heading towards them.
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated 27 hours: Nightside Saga Series, Book One in Books
Jan 23, 2020
DNF at a place I don't remember because I read this book ages ago and apparently I didn't upload a review. (Also will not be supporting further on after this due to reasons.)
<b><i>I received this book for free from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</b></i>
I wish I could’ve enjoyed 27 Hours as much as most people I know seem to have enjoyed the book, but alas, that is not the case.
Also I’ve been keeping a wonderful streak of finishing every book this year, and I wanted to keep that streak. But...
27 Hours was an absolute pain for me to read, and this was the situation I found myself in constantly:
Me: *picks up book, starts reading*
Me (ten minutes later): Ugh, this is painful. I’m bored.
Me (while trying to read): I’m going to do some blogging and maybe quest on my balance wizard. Maybe this will motivate me.
Me (two hours later): *finishes a dungeon in game, finds myself reading maybe two sentences in between battles* Please note that I'm actually good at reading while waiting for my turn, especially when I'm in a team.
Me (two days later): Ooo shiny book! *starts new book*
Me (another two days later): Oh, yeah. I was supposed to read you, right? *eyes book warily* Let's try this again.
This cycle repeated itself for days and weeks. Eventually, I just called it quits because when I’ve been repeating the same thing over and over again and have progressed more in a game than a book, we’ve got issues and it’s time for me to move on to other books.
27 Hours has a lot of representation among the characters, I won’t deny that. But that’s honestly the only thing I can think of that’s good about this book. Anything I might have missed has been clouded over by the cons.
<b>Why 27 Hours Is Not My Cup of Tea</b>
Rumor - I’m being very nitpicky, but the name Rumor instantly reminded me of Adele’s song. Every time “Rumor” came up in the book (which is a lot, considering the fact he’s a main character), the song blasted in my brain.
The name Rumor, however, is the least of my worries.
The world building is a mass of confusion - I have no clue what things are and honestly the world is a jumbled mess of a confusion. Is a dragon the same as a gargoyle, is a chimera the same as a gargoyle, are they simply the same creatures with different names depending on which group the person belongs to… or what? Is it a group of rebellious humans? Also what is this about hellhounds and gargoyles? The world building feels like a melting pot gone very wrong on the moon hundreds of years in the future.
Not only is the world building is a mass of confusion, but it feels way too modern for a book that is supposedly set 200 years from now.
I’m mainly concerned about the world building to focus on the logistics of book year and present year, though.
Too many characters - There are too many to keep track of in 27 Hours, and the fun part? They’re introduced early. I don’t… I don’t even know who this random dude is and boom! We’ve got another one. I knew for sure there were going to be at least four POVs, which is a lot, but it’s not too much. BUT… not only do we have Jude, Rumor, Nyx, Braedon, etc. etc. we have some person named Colt, Wren, Eric, Sara… that’s just some of the characters.
This is by chapter three. Chapter freaking THREE. My brain was already hurting from the world building and then there are all of these characters being introduced and OMG I just wanted to scream.
I just… I just can’t handle all of these characters because I don’t even remember who does what by the time character #2244 pops up.
I really wished I could’ve finished 27 Hours and continued my streak for this year, but the huge cast of characters being introduced so early into the story and massively confusing world is a no go for me.
<a href="https://thenovelistics.blogspot.com/2017/11/27-hours-by-tristina-wright-arc-review.html">This review is originally posted on The Novelistics</a>
<b><i>I received this book for free from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</b></i>
I wish I could’ve enjoyed 27 Hours as much as most people I know seem to have enjoyed the book, but alas, that is not the case.
Also I’ve been keeping a wonderful streak of finishing every book this year, and I wanted to keep that streak. But...
27 Hours was an absolute pain for me to read, and this was the situation I found myself in constantly:
Me: *picks up book, starts reading*
Me (ten minutes later): Ugh, this is painful. I’m bored.
Me (while trying to read): I’m going to do some blogging and maybe quest on my balance wizard. Maybe this will motivate me.
Me (two hours later): *finishes a dungeon in game, finds myself reading maybe two sentences in between battles* Please note that I'm actually good at reading while waiting for my turn, especially when I'm in a team.
Me (two days later): Ooo shiny book! *starts new book*
Me (another two days later): Oh, yeah. I was supposed to read you, right? *eyes book warily* Let's try this again.
This cycle repeated itself for days and weeks. Eventually, I just called it quits because when I’ve been repeating the same thing over and over again and have progressed more in a game than a book, we’ve got issues and it’s time for me to move on to other books.
27 Hours has a lot of representation among the characters, I won’t deny that. But that’s honestly the only thing I can think of that’s good about this book. Anything I might have missed has been clouded over by the cons.
<b>Why 27 Hours Is Not My Cup of Tea</b>
Rumor - I’m being very nitpicky, but the name Rumor instantly reminded me of Adele’s song. Every time “Rumor” came up in the book (which is a lot, considering the fact he’s a main character), the song blasted in my brain.
The name Rumor, however, is the least of my worries.
The world building is a mass of confusion - I have no clue what things are and honestly the world is a jumbled mess of a confusion. Is a dragon the same as a gargoyle, is a chimera the same as a gargoyle, are they simply the same creatures with different names depending on which group the person belongs to… or what? Is it a group of rebellious humans? Also what is this about hellhounds and gargoyles? The world building feels like a melting pot gone very wrong on the moon hundreds of years in the future.
Not only is the world building is a mass of confusion, but it feels way too modern for a book that is supposedly set 200 years from now.
I’m mainly concerned about the world building to focus on the logistics of book year and present year, though.
Too many characters - There are too many to keep track of in 27 Hours, and the fun part? They’re introduced early. I don’t… I don’t even know who this random dude is and boom! We’ve got another one. I knew for sure there were going to be at least four POVs, which is a lot, but it’s not too much. BUT… not only do we have Jude, Rumor, Nyx, Braedon, etc. etc. we have some person named Colt, Wren, Eric, Sara… that’s just some of the characters.
This is by chapter three. Chapter freaking THREE. My brain was already hurting from the world building and then there are all of these characters being introduced and OMG I just wanted to scream.
I just… I just can’t handle all of these characters because I don’t even remember who does what by the time character #2244 pops up.
I really wished I could’ve finished 27 Hours and continued my streak for this year, but the huge cast of characters being introduced so early into the story and massively confusing world is a no go for me.
<a href="https://thenovelistics.blogspot.com/2017/11/27-hours-by-tristina-wright-arc-review.html">This review is originally posted on The Novelistics</a>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Underwater was in my top picks for February, it looked like a cross between Deep Rising, Alien and a selection of Doctor Who episodes... I was definitely in.
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html