Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2084 KP) rated The Spirit in Question in Books
Oct 3, 2018
Murder in the Haunted Theater
Lila has been talked into working on a play that her university is putting on this semester. The play is Puzzled: The Musical written by Tolliver Ingersoll, a fellow professor at Stonedale University, and it's being directed by Jean Claude Lestronge, who is visiting the college for the semester. Putting the play on is proving to be a struggle, but things get more interesting when someone is shot during a planned blackout. That's when Lila starts to hear some stories about the history of this particular theater. Could that have something to do with what is currently happening? Or is there a more modern motive for murder?
There is a lot happening in this book, and at times, the plot appears to ramble as a result. The murder definitely takes a back seat to some of the other things going on, but I never found myself getting board since everything was entertaining. And the various bits and pieces do begin to tie together the further we get into the book. Because we get so many new characters, we don't see much of most of the series regulars, but the new characters are all developed enough to make us care about the outcome, and Lila continues to be a strong lead. And the play! I was laughing at the little bits we did learn about it over the course of the book. Heck, the song titles alone are great. It looks like a fun spoof of the mystery genre that I would go see if I could.
There is a lot happening in this book, and at times, the plot appears to ramble as a result. The murder definitely takes a back seat to some of the other things going on, but I never found myself getting board since everything was entertaining. And the various bits and pieces do begin to tie together the further we get into the book. Because we get so many new characters, we don't see much of most of the series regulars, but the new characters are all developed enough to make us care about the outcome, and Lila continues to be a strong lead. And the play! I was laughing at the little bits we did learn about it over the course of the book. Heck, the song titles alone are great. It looks like a fun spoof of the mystery genre that I would go see if I could.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Lego Batman Movie (2017) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman reigns supreme. Dark, Gothic, self important egotist with serious commitment issues. The Lego Batman Movie could have been little more than a cash in on a popular character from the 2014 surprise hit, The Lego Movie (2014), but instead we get a film which would seem to cement the future of this spoof, family entertainment franchise.
The “Real” Batman, as we all know, is struggling along the rest of hid Justice League pals to break back in to big leagues, but as long a Marvel are ruling the box office this is an uphill task, but here we have a movie and franchise which is limitless in its possibilities, plotting and imagination as anything and everything can be pulled out for the bag for the most entertaining, if not bizarre mash ups imaginable.
Not just limiting himself to DC, director, Chris McKay of Robot Chicken fame, other movies and toys of all ages can band together to create these plots but that said, these are not just cynical product placements, they are taken from the minds of the audience, whether they be three years old or 80, as Batman is himself referenced to be in this film.
Also, drawing on Batman’s long and lavish history as much as possible, we have it all, from the earliest comics, theatrical serials, every previous feature film and a few new twists to be thrown in at will. In short, this is as much fun as you can imagine and it lives up to its potential if not surpassing it from the opening black frames to the final credit.
Recommended for all the family whether you are Batman fans or not.
The “Real” Batman, as we all know, is struggling along the rest of hid Justice League pals to break back in to big leagues, but as long a Marvel are ruling the box office this is an uphill task, but here we have a movie and franchise which is limitless in its possibilities, plotting and imagination as anything and everything can be pulled out for the bag for the most entertaining, if not bizarre mash ups imaginable.
Not just limiting himself to DC, director, Chris McKay of Robot Chicken fame, other movies and toys of all ages can band together to create these plots but that said, these are not just cynical product placements, they are taken from the minds of the audience, whether they be three years old or 80, as Batman is himself referenced to be in this film.
Also, drawing on Batman’s long and lavish history as much as possible, we have it all, from the earliest comics, theatrical serials, every previous feature film and a few new twists to be thrown in at will. In short, this is as much fun as you can imagine and it lives up to its potential if not surpassing it from the opening black frames to the final credit.
Recommended for all the family whether you are Batman fans or not.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
Full of Eurovision spirit
I am a big fan of Eurovision, it's a must see event every year and I've even been to see it in person when it was last held in Denmark. Sadly with the cancellation of pretty much everything this year including Eurovision, I've been dying for a bit of cheesy fun and this film *almost* delivers it in the truckload.
This film really knows how to channel the Eurovision spirit. There's a lot of great cheesy songs and costumes, some great over the top performances (Dan Stevens was a hoot) and a decent amount of heart. The songs are very good, from the hilariously cheesy to the impressive ballads. The acting was good although i felt Will Ferrell was a little of a letdown. It was great to see Dan Stevens camping it up though and a nice (but sadly too short) role for Natasia Demetriou from What We Do in the Shadows, and I loved the cameos from existing real life Eurovision acts.
The problem with this film is the humour is lacking when it's not cheesy Eurovision fun. And the jokes that were there fell pretty flat for me. The film is also rather longer than you'd expect and did drag a little in the middle.
I had been expecting a Eurovision spoof comedy, but instead what I got was almost a homage to everything we love about Eurovision. It's not great but definitely an enjoyable bit of fun. I've been debating whether to score this a 6 or 7 and in the end, I've decided to be rather generous as it is a lot of fun.
This film really knows how to channel the Eurovision spirit. There's a lot of great cheesy songs and costumes, some great over the top performances (Dan Stevens was a hoot) and a decent amount of heart. The songs are very good, from the hilariously cheesy to the impressive ballads. The acting was good although i felt Will Ferrell was a little of a letdown. It was great to see Dan Stevens camping it up though and a nice (but sadly too short) role for Natasia Demetriou from What We Do in the Shadows, and I loved the cameos from existing real life Eurovision acts.
The problem with this film is the humour is lacking when it's not cheesy Eurovision fun. And the jokes that were there fell pretty flat for me. The film is also rather longer than you'd expect and did drag a little in the middle.
I had been expecting a Eurovision spoof comedy, but instead what I got was almost a homage to everything we love about Eurovision. It's not great but definitely an enjoyable bit of fun. I've been debating whether to score this a 6 or 7 and in the end, I've decided to be rather generous as it is a lot of fun.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2084 KP) rated Cozy Up to Blood in Books
Oct 29, 2021
Hiding Out on an Island with…Vampires?
Murray Lee has wandered onto the island of Belfry off the coast of Oregon just as the rains wash away the bridge connecting it to the mainland. He’s just in time for the annual festival dedicated to the movies in the Evenfall series, a popular vampire themed series of books and movies which were filmed on the island. This means there are plenty of outsiders posing as vampires around town. Someone is taking advantage of the crowds by attacking some of the locals, stealing from them, and biting their necks. The local police think that Murray is a good suspect since he is new to town but obviously not part of the Evenfall crowd. But Murray doesn’t want the police looking into him or his past. He has a secret. And it might have something to do with the motorcycle gang sitting on the other side of the bridge waiting for the water to recede. Can he clear his name without revealing his past? Will he even get off the island alive?
There is a part of me that enjoyed the book despite the flaws. I do enjoy Murray’s character, and I want to see him succeed and be happy. The Evenfall books and movies, clearly a spoof on Twilight, were always funny when they were the focus of the story. And yet, the mystery of the book was weak, almost more a sub-plot in the middle of everything else. I’ve always struggled a bit with the overall premise of the series, but this time, it was extremely unbelievable. I am still hoping we get another book, especially since the ending set up another adventure. If you are interested in the series, I suggest you wait until you can get them cheaply.
There is a part of me that enjoyed the book despite the flaws. I do enjoy Murray’s character, and I want to see him succeed and be happy. The Evenfall books and movies, clearly a spoof on Twilight, were always funny when they were the focus of the story. And yet, the mystery of the book was weak, almost more a sub-plot in the middle of everything else. I’ve always struggled a bit with the overall premise of the series, but this time, it was extremely unbelievable. I am still hoping we get another book, especially since the ending set up another adventure. If you are interested in the series, I suggest you wait until you can get them cheaply.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
My very first experience with the incredibly talented Rowan Atkinson was when I saw a silly Mr. Bean short that was played before the Beauty and the Beast movie. This was way back in 1991 and yet you wouldn’t believe that he’s aged at all during that time. Johnny English Strikes Again is the third movie in the Johnny English franchise, and is another James Bond inspired spoof where our never aging super spy once again tries to outwit a maniacal super genius hell bent on taking over the world.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2084 KP) rated Fake Truth in Books
Jun 5, 2020
The Truth is I Wish More of This Book Were Fake
Writer Ian Ludlow is stuck. Despite his most recent exploits as an off the books CIA agent, he can’t come up with anything worthy of his next book. So when his CIA partner, Margo French, throws a newspaper at him, he picks a couple of articles at random and they begin to investigate as if Ian’s writer’s imagination was right and there is a connection between them. The scary thing is, they might have stumbled upon something that way, with tentacles that spread from Russia to the US-Mexico border with the news media in between. But what exactly have they found?
I’ve enjoyed the first two books in this series, but this one was a disappointment. While we see the various threads involved in this plot early on, the story still moves too slowly for the first half. Once it does start, we get plenty of action and a great climax. Since this is a loving spoof of the spy genre, I definitely enjoyed some laughs. The characters can be a bit thin, but that’s part of the genre. Unfortunately, so is sex, and there are several sex scenes I really could have done without. The author stages his story in such a way that very thinly disguises his politics, which really pulled me out of the story. I pick up fiction to escape politics, not to have one point of view shoved down my throat. I realize both of the things that bothered me might be selling points to others, but to me, they kept me from fully enjoying the book. I enjoyed the first two books in this series (and the books should be read in order since this one has some spoilers for previous adventures), so hopefully the series will be back to entertaining for the next in the series.
I’ve enjoyed the first two books in this series, but this one was a disappointment. While we see the various threads involved in this plot early on, the story still moves too slowly for the first half. Once it does start, we get plenty of action and a great climax. Since this is a loving spoof of the spy genre, I definitely enjoyed some laughs. The characters can be a bit thin, but that’s part of the genre. Unfortunately, so is sex, and there are several sex scenes I really could have done without. The author stages his story in such a way that very thinly disguises his politics, which really pulled me out of the story. I pick up fiction to escape politics, not to have one point of view shoved down my throat. I realize both of the things that bothered me might be selling points to others, but to me, they kept me from fully enjoying the book. I enjoyed the first two books in this series (and the books should be read in order since this one has some spoilers for previous adventures), so hopefully the series will be back to entertaining for the next in the series.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Jul 18, 2021
Oh come on... you know I'm watching Nic Cage go full rage at some killer robots!
A stranger runs into bad luck as he nears a small town in the middle of nowhere. Luckily a local mechanic comes across him stranded and offers him assistance. But the bad luck isn't over. With no way to pay for his new tyres, he has to agree to some light cleaning work in the abandoned town attraction. What could possibly go wrong when you're locked in a family restaurant overnight with some large, menacing looking, animatronics?
What's not to love about this particular breed of film? Horror that is so over the top with daftness and unintentional/intentional humour really does hit the spot.
Is this storyline sensible? Absolutely not. If you pick at any thread this will very quickly fall apart... but we're here for the nonsense. You don't come to a Nic Cage film these days for anything else. And much like shark films, I have an independent scoring system to deem the quality of his offerings.
The dynamics between all of the characters is hilarious. Cage with... everyone... is stranger (as expected), and the others all have stereotypical elements to them that bounce back and forth well. Though none of them are quite as obvious as you'd see in spoof horrors though. Beth Grant is always fun to have in things, and she's got the sinister thing down quite well, definitely a great pick for this role.
Our animatronic actors have the perfect creepy movements, combine this with the oversized costumes and the somewhat magical elements to their activities, and you get some fantastic nightmare fuel.
Though I have to query who designed such a terrible layout for a family restaurant, I can't help but marvel at all the different rooms scattered around the building. A fantastic maze of terror waiting for anyone who enters, and each one with its retro-ramshackle look is a delight to see. Throw in the oversized entertainment and the look is great.
At just 88 minutes in length it's a nice easy watch, and you'll definitely have enough to keep you... intrigued? I found myself shouting at the screen with "why", "how" and "what" type questions, and that just added to my enjoyment. A masterpiece.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/willys-wonderland-movie-review.html
A stranger runs into bad luck as he nears a small town in the middle of nowhere. Luckily a local mechanic comes across him stranded and offers him assistance. But the bad luck isn't over. With no way to pay for his new tyres, he has to agree to some light cleaning work in the abandoned town attraction. What could possibly go wrong when you're locked in a family restaurant overnight with some large, menacing looking, animatronics?
What's not to love about this particular breed of film? Horror that is so over the top with daftness and unintentional/intentional humour really does hit the spot.
Is this storyline sensible? Absolutely not. If you pick at any thread this will very quickly fall apart... but we're here for the nonsense. You don't come to a Nic Cage film these days for anything else. And much like shark films, I have an independent scoring system to deem the quality of his offerings.
The dynamics between all of the characters is hilarious. Cage with... everyone... is stranger (as expected), and the others all have stereotypical elements to them that bounce back and forth well. Though none of them are quite as obvious as you'd see in spoof horrors though. Beth Grant is always fun to have in things, and she's got the sinister thing down quite well, definitely a great pick for this role.
Our animatronic actors have the perfect creepy movements, combine this with the oversized costumes and the somewhat magical elements to their activities, and you get some fantastic nightmare fuel.
Though I have to query who designed such a terrible layout for a family restaurant, I can't help but marvel at all the different rooms scattered around the building. A fantastic maze of terror waiting for anyone who enters, and each one with its retro-ramshackle look is a delight to see. Throw in the oversized entertainment and the look is great.
At just 88 minutes in length it's a nice easy watch, and you'll definitely have enough to keep you... intrigued? I found myself shouting at the screen with "why", "how" and "what" type questions, and that just added to my enjoyment. A masterpiece.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/willys-wonderland-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rebekah Palmer Pierce (225 KP) Oct 3, 2018
NerdGeek (155 KP) Oct 3, 2018