Search
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Rot & Ruin (Rot & Ruin, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I don't know what makes zombies so cool, but they are. I love reading zombie books, so when I heard about Rot & Ruin by Jonathan Maberry, I knew I had to read this book. This has definitely become my favourite zombie book...EVER!
Benny has grown up in a world where zombies have always existed. His brother, Tom, has been around before the zombies. Everyone thinks Tom is a hero, but Benny has his doubts. Tom left their mother to the mercy of the zombies. Benny doesn't want to spend time with Tom killing zombies, but at 15 year old, he must get a job or have his rations cut in half. With no job satisfying him, Benny begrudgingly agrees to help kill zombies with his brother Tom. Along the way, Benny learns that Tom isn't the person he thought he was. Benny also gets a lesson in compassion. Will Benny be satisfied with killing zombies or will Benny become a zombie himself?
The cover for Rot & Ruin is alright. I've got the cover where the actual cover is not a full cover. The top cover is what is shown in the photo above, but when you open the top cover, the next cover shows the face of a zombie. It gets points for having a zombie cover, but it's nothing special. However, I do like the quote on the cover: "This book is full of heart...They just don't beat anymore." That made me chuckle!
Rot & Ruin is definitely a great title for this book. The Rot & Ruin is where all the zombies exist. I thought it was a fantastic choice.
I was amazed with the world building in this book. From the very first page, I was transported into this zombie apocalypse wasteland. I've never been in a zombie apocalypse, but the author does a good job making me feel like I was living in one each time I started reading his book. The description of the wasteland gives the reader a vivid mental picture of what a zombie apocalypse might entail.
As for the pacing, I never wanted to put this book down. In fact, there was one day where we had company, and I didn't get to read this book at all that day. I was in a bad mood because of it! This is definitely a fast paced, action packed, thrilling book that will leave you hungry for more. Not once while I was reading this book did I become bored with it. I was hooked from the very first page.
The dialogue/wording was fantastic. Through the dialogue, the author portrays the emotions of the characters quite well. I especially enjoyed the dialogue between Benny and his brother Tom. There are a few big words that I didn't understand, but perhaps that's just my limited vocabulary. Do be aware that there is some swearing in this book.
I felt that the characters were well developed. My favourite character was Tom. He came off as being very wise and just as an all around nice person. Benny was a great character as well. I liked how I was able to watch him grow as a character. He starts off being a typical 14 year old teenager, but after witnessing what he is forced to witness, he starts growing up. He starts maturing, and I feel that the author did a fantastic job showing us how Benny was forced to grow up. Charlie and the Hammer were well written as baddies. I hated them throughout the book. Not because they weren't written well but because the author makes us see how horrible these two really are.
I definitely enjoyed this whole book from start to finish. I read it in record time and had even bought the next book in the series before I even finished with Rot & Ruin. I loved the different spin this book put on zombies. It sort of humanizes them and makes us really think about how zombies were once human and how they were somebody's mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, etc. It really does make you think. Because of this, Rot & Ruin is much different then any zombie book I've ever read, and I really appreciated that. I also enjoyed that this book just wasn't focused on killing zombies. There's a lot more to the story then just zombie killing.
Although the book says it's for ages 12 and up, I'd recommend it to ages 14+ due to the violence, language, and themes.
I don't know what makes zombies so cool, but they are. I love reading zombie books, so when I heard about Rot & Ruin by Jonathan Maberry, I knew I had to read this book. This has definitely become my favourite zombie book...EVER!
Benny has grown up in a world where zombies have always existed. His brother, Tom, has been around before the zombies. Everyone thinks Tom is a hero, but Benny has his doubts. Tom left their mother to the mercy of the zombies. Benny doesn't want to spend time with Tom killing zombies, but at 15 year old, he must get a job or have his rations cut in half. With no job satisfying him, Benny begrudgingly agrees to help kill zombies with his brother Tom. Along the way, Benny learns that Tom isn't the person he thought he was. Benny also gets a lesson in compassion. Will Benny be satisfied with killing zombies or will Benny become a zombie himself?
The cover for Rot & Ruin is alright. I've got the cover where the actual cover is not a full cover. The top cover is what is shown in the photo above, but when you open the top cover, the next cover shows the face of a zombie. It gets points for having a zombie cover, but it's nothing special. However, I do like the quote on the cover: "This book is full of heart...They just don't beat anymore." That made me chuckle!
Rot & Ruin is definitely a great title for this book. The Rot & Ruin is where all the zombies exist. I thought it was a fantastic choice.
I was amazed with the world building in this book. From the very first page, I was transported into this zombie apocalypse wasteland. I've never been in a zombie apocalypse, but the author does a good job making me feel like I was living in one each time I started reading his book. The description of the wasteland gives the reader a vivid mental picture of what a zombie apocalypse might entail.
As for the pacing, I never wanted to put this book down. In fact, there was one day where we had company, and I didn't get to read this book at all that day. I was in a bad mood because of it! This is definitely a fast paced, action packed, thrilling book that will leave you hungry for more. Not once while I was reading this book did I become bored with it. I was hooked from the very first page.
The dialogue/wording was fantastic. Through the dialogue, the author portrays the emotions of the characters quite well. I especially enjoyed the dialogue between Benny and his brother Tom. There are a few big words that I didn't understand, but perhaps that's just my limited vocabulary. Do be aware that there is some swearing in this book.
I felt that the characters were well developed. My favourite character was Tom. He came off as being very wise and just as an all around nice person. Benny was a great character as well. I liked how I was able to watch him grow as a character. He starts off being a typical 14 year old teenager, but after witnessing what he is forced to witness, he starts growing up. He starts maturing, and I feel that the author did a fantastic job showing us how Benny was forced to grow up. Charlie and the Hammer were well written as baddies. I hated them throughout the book. Not because they weren't written well but because the author makes us see how horrible these two really are.
I definitely enjoyed this whole book from start to finish. I read it in record time and had even bought the next book in the series before I even finished with Rot & Ruin. I loved the different spin this book put on zombies. It sort of humanizes them and makes us really think about how zombies were once human and how they were somebody's mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, etc. It really does make you think. Because of this, Rot & Ruin is much different then any zombie book I've ever read, and I really appreciated that. I also enjoyed that this book just wasn't focused on killing zombies. There's a lot more to the story then just zombie killing.
Although the book says it's for ages 12 and up, I'd recommend it to ages 14+ due to the violence, language, and themes.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You Decide in Tabletop Games
Nov 12, 2020
What game do you think of when I mention, “roll and move?” For me, it’s Candy Land. Perhaps most kids’ first foray into board games at all. To be honest, it’s not even a roll and move, it’s more a flip and move, but they are usually all the same anyway: roll/flip/spin something and then move your pawn. Sometimes there will be something on the spot to “do” and sometimes you just try to race to the finish. So when the publisher and I were chatting about You Decide and they mentioned it was a family-style roll and move game, I had my doubts, but I wanted to try it out. How does this first game from new publisher Davidson Games fare? Let’s find out and You Decide.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Enjoyable, not as good as Annabelle Creation
Annabelle Comes Home is the third standalone movie for the creepy looking doll since her introduction during the original Conjuring movie. It's also the seventh feature movie from the ever expanding 'Conjuring Universe', a series of movies that have seen wildly varying degrees of quality and success thus far. I tend to start my reviews for this series of movies by declaring my love for the first Conjuring, before wishing that the latest release I'm reviewing might actually match that. But so far the only other movie in the series to come anywhere close to doing that for me was the last Annabelle movie - Annabelle Creation. So, I had very high hopes for this next Annabelle installment.
After venturing into the past with the previous Annabelle movies, Annabelle Comes Home begins by expanding on the events of The Conjuring. The Warrens take the Annabelle doll into their care in order to keep it safe in their home, under lock and key in their famous artefact room. The car journey home is an eventful one though and it is a real joy to be back in the company of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga and their portrayal of paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Their characters, and their performances, have been the most enjoyable aspect of these movies for me and this opening chapter with them gets things off to a great start. With Annabelle in the artefact room, blessed by the local priest and contained in a cabinet made out of chapel glass, the evil is contained. And Annabelle is now home.
From there we shift forward a year, where the focus of the movie turns to the Warren's 10 year old daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace). Her parents occupation and reputation is clearly having an effect on her life, with other children at school poking fun at her and refusing to come to her birthday party at the creepy Warren house. That uncomfortable, uneasy feeling of having a room in your house where unspeakable evil is being contained probably doesn't help things either! When her parents have to go away one night, friendly babysitter Mary Ellen comes over to take care of Judy, stepping in to the role of much needed friend. Mary Ellen's friend Daniela arrives to join them a little bit later, uninvited and proving to be a little less straight-laced than Mary Ellen is.
Daniela is currently grieving from the recent loss of her father and is suffering with strong feelings of guilt surrounding the circumstances of his death. She is clearly fascinated and intrigued by the work of the Warrens, so while Mary Ellen and Judy are outside rollerskating, she wastes no time in hunting down the keys to the artefact room so that she can take a poke around inside. As Daniela slowly and carefully examines the room and its many contents for us, it's clear that we're getting a pretty good introduction to the variety of horrors set to be unleashed on the girls in some form later on in the movie. It's a slow buildup though, and on top of the babysitter buildup we've had so far, it's probably a good 45 minutes into the movie before anything substantial happens. I read my review of Annabelle Creation before seeing this movie, and I'd noted that following a similar pattern, with very good results, so I wasn't overly concerned by all of that if the payoff was worth it.
The thing is though, when things do start going a little crazy, the results aren't entirely successful. To be fair, there are some genuinely creepy and very well executed scares. But there are also plenty that don't work so well too. Some new spirits are introduced too, no doubt destined to have their own spin-off movie at some point - 'The Ferryman', who guides souls into the afterlife and requires payment of two coins placed on the eyes of the dead, and the 'Hellhound of Essex'. One of those works considerably well, the other just being distracting and silly.
Despite it's slow-burn start, and it's generic baby-sitter horror setting, I definitely enjoyed Annabelle Comes Home. It's certainly not as good as either of The Conjuring movies, or Annabelle Creation, but it's definitely much better than The Nun or The Curse of La Llorona.
After venturing into the past with the previous Annabelle movies, Annabelle Comes Home begins by expanding on the events of The Conjuring. The Warrens take the Annabelle doll into their care in order to keep it safe in their home, under lock and key in their famous artefact room. The car journey home is an eventful one though and it is a real joy to be back in the company of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga and their portrayal of paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Their characters, and their performances, have been the most enjoyable aspect of these movies for me and this opening chapter with them gets things off to a great start. With Annabelle in the artefact room, blessed by the local priest and contained in a cabinet made out of chapel glass, the evil is contained. And Annabelle is now home.
From there we shift forward a year, where the focus of the movie turns to the Warren's 10 year old daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace). Her parents occupation and reputation is clearly having an effect on her life, with other children at school poking fun at her and refusing to come to her birthday party at the creepy Warren house. That uncomfortable, uneasy feeling of having a room in your house where unspeakable evil is being contained probably doesn't help things either! When her parents have to go away one night, friendly babysitter Mary Ellen comes over to take care of Judy, stepping in to the role of much needed friend. Mary Ellen's friend Daniela arrives to join them a little bit later, uninvited and proving to be a little less straight-laced than Mary Ellen is.
Daniela is currently grieving from the recent loss of her father and is suffering with strong feelings of guilt surrounding the circumstances of his death. She is clearly fascinated and intrigued by the work of the Warrens, so while Mary Ellen and Judy are outside rollerskating, she wastes no time in hunting down the keys to the artefact room so that she can take a poke around inside. As Daniela slowly and carefully examines the room and its many contents for us, it's clear that we're getting a pretty good introduction to the variety of horrors set to be unleashed on the girls in some form later on in the movie. It's a slow buildup though, and on top of the babysitter buildup we've had so far, it's probably a good 45 minutes into the movie before anything substantial happens. I read my review of Annabelle Creation before seeing this movie, and I'd noted that following a similar pattern, with very good results, so I wasn't overly concerned by all of that if the payoff was worth it.
The thing is though, when things do start going a little crazy, the results aren't entirely successful. To be fair, there are some genuinely creepy and very well executed scares. But there are also plenty that don't work so well too. Some new spirits are introduced too, no doubt destined to have their own spin-off movie at some point - 'The Ferryman', who guides souls into the afterlife and requires payment of two coins placed on the eyes of the dead, and the 'Hellhound of Essex'. One of those works considerably well, the other just being distracting and silly.
Despite it's slow-burn start, and it's generic baby-sitter horror setting, I definitely enjoyed Annabelle Comes Home. It's certainly not as good as either of The Conjuring movies, or Annabelle Creation, but it's definitely much better than The Nun or The Curse of La Llorona.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. I’m a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe it has been 19 years since “Unbreakable” arrived in cinemas as the film seemed to setup a sequel but it did not look like it would come to fruition. That all changed in 2016 when “Split” arrived and shocked audiences with a late reveal that showed a connection to the film. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan has wasted no time in bringing the new film to fans with the arrival of “GLASS”. The film picks up soon after the events of “Split” as The Horde embodied by 23 personalities in the form of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) continues to kidnap young girls to serve to his highly dangerous 24th personality The Beast.
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Brilliant acting (2 more)
Multiple examples of excellent camera techniques, homaging a lot from that era
Superb direction
Rushed third act (1 more)
Could be too long for some people
A film for people who like to go to the cinema
Once upon a time in Hollywood is not QT’s best film but certainly not the worst. That award goes to Death Proof. It was a difficult film to market because when I got wind of his new film, it was advertised as revolving around the Sharon Tate murders/Charles “Charlie” Bronson but this film is so much more than that. The whole story meanders around like the roads around Cielo Drive, almost to the point of not really going anywhere and really just to enjoy the characters in this fictionalised retelling of that period.
It is quite astonishing that there are still people out there who would think this is a faithful interpretation of what happened and more so that QT has to publicly say ‘this is a story of fiction’ but I am no expert on the case, even though over the years I have dabbled into it through various books and news reports.
The main thing to get across is to go in with no expectations other than QT inevitably will put his spin on things and that, really, is what will draw audiences to this film. There’s always a bit to latch onto with QT films whether it be a character or the world he has created for those characters to live in or a reference to another film or, indeed, something else. It is what makes QT so appealing. He tells stories the way he wants to tell them. That said, the third act (which actually deals with the murders), although fun and frenetic, feels a little rushed and could possibly shows signs of studio meddling with what QT wanted to focus on. That’s the main criticism of this film but the rest of it will have film academics in years to come pick apart individual sequences and dissecting them into pointless philosophical notions and semantical (is that a word?) studies that are completely off point for a long time. Do I want to bore you with how clever QT is by being able to subtly put across to the viewer through camera techniques and direction his influences of 1950s and 60s television and cinema? No, if you’re a cinema fan you’ll get those references and more on repeat viewings. If you’re not a cinema fan, then it establishes enough world for you to warrant the hyperbole ‘fantastic escapism’. The point is you’re going to enjoy this film if you enjoy going to the cinema. Well, most of you. Some may spite that statement and say Legally Blonde is where it is at. Well, if that’s your stance, go rewatch Legally Blonde as the people who came to the cinema to actually enjoy this film have no time for that viewpoint.
See this if you love QT films. He throws in a lot of references to his body of work to make you nod to fellow audience members and silently say ‘I got that reference’. If you’re not a QT fan but a lover of cinema, especially American cinema, you’ll get more than just a kick out of it. There’s even something for the casual viewer if you’re willing to invest your time in it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glory (1989) in Movies
Apr 14, 2020
Well acted with tense battle scenes
Every now and then, I'll watch a specific scene in a movie and when it is complete, I say to myself - "that person just won the Oscar." Such was the case for a young "up and coming' actor in the 1989 Civil War film GLORY.
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Doom Patrol in TV
Jul 4, 2020
Not Your Average Superhero Show - 7/10
Doom Patrol Is a 2019 action/sci-fi, comedy/drama superhero TV series based on the DC comic created by writers Arnold Drake and Bob Haney and artist Bruno Premiani. It was developed by Jeremy Carver, and produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television for DC Universe. Doom Patrol is a spin-off of Titans, a superhero TV series also on DC Universe. Starring Brendan Fraser, Timothy Dalton, Alan Tudyk, Matt Bomer and April Bowlby.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Immortal (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
You can't stop what's coming.
l'immortale is a good companion piece to possibly the greatest TV show of all time gomorra & while it does shed a bit more light on what sort of the life one of its best characters had at a younger age and where he is now i can't help but feel it's tainted one of the best twists the show has to offer overall. (WARNING: spoilers for gomorrah ahead but if your watching this anyway before you have seen the show I'd strongly advise not to). After surviving the incident on the boat at the end of season 3 Ciro begins a new life in Latvia caught working between Russian clans in Latvia. Long gone now are the days of him being a top dog & while he still has a certain celebrity status among people here he is undoubtedly someone else's bitch. He's a man that has absolutely nothing left to loose now & it's finally stating to take a toll on him mentally and physically. Marco D'Amore again is fantastic here & this time plays a more subjude Ciro. As a character he lacks confidence now & walks around with less pride & cockynes, he's not as sure of himself & personality wise he's alot quieter & socially distantanced. He also spends a lot of time thinking in silence, just remenising & taking in the scenery almost like life itself bores him now & he is just waiting for the day to come where someone puts him down. Marco D'Amore plays this character perfectly as always & as a viewer its great to see the mighty Ciro from a different light & helps us to feel his pain connecting with him in an alternative way to which we usually do. Marco D'Amore is also the director this time too & as a first film it's a really great effort but also at the same time he seems to really struggle finding an identity of his own & here lies my biggest problem with the movie. Far to often it feels like he's trying to just replicate Gomorra instead of taking the regins & putting his own spin on things (a bit like what ryan gosling did with the lost river trying to initiate nwr). Don't get me wrong is very similar to Gommora but it's not as griping, powerful, raw, gritty, impactful & full of tension like the show is & thus most of the scenes that use the same format either feel a bit hollow or off in some way. I did really enjoy the flash back scenes & seeing Ciro's upbringing & other tragidies that happen back then certainly do a great job of explaining why he's generally such a cold hearted desensitised person. What I can't understand is the main plot & that's mainly because the characters life had a fitting conclusion at the end of Gomorra season 3 so bringing him back now randomly for a movie just makes a very realistically grounded show seem a bit far fetched because while he maybe nicknamed the immortal after all he's still only human. All in all if it had just been a prequel film I think I'd of enjoyed it a lot more however if your a fan of the show & it's characters I would recommend seeing this as it definitely fills the time while waiting for season 5 & it absolutely proves Marco D'Amore shows promise as a director too.