Search
Lenard (726 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2019
It: Chapter Two continues the story of the malevolent cosmic being that appears mostly as a clown named Pennywise. In 1989, a group of seven friends nicknamed The Losers' Club ended the reign of terror of It, swearing a blood oath (seen in both chapters) that if It returned they would come back. They had an unearthed a twenty-year cycle of terror so one would assume that they would be extravigilent in 2016. But you know how it is. You move away from your hometown, you lose track of your friends, the horrible things that happened to you when you were 13 tend to take on a glossy foggy shade of its former memory. As an adult, you forget about some of the things you did when you were younger, keeping only the happier memories of your childhood unless you were mercilessly abused and keep hold on the childhood traumas you escaped. Bill, Stan, Eddie, Richie, Bev, and Ben have no memories of the weird events of that summer. But sometimes the past comes back to haunt you or in this case, your old friend from back then, Mike calls you up and reminds you that you made a pact.
Now, The Losers' Club reunite to defeat the evil force that overtakes their town of Derry, Maine. Like any good Stephen King adaptation, the supernatural being that terrorizes is not such a huge component. It is the story of friends and the way they are able to colloborate and grow. It: Chapter 2 is a sort of The Big Chill if a murderous clown connected the friends. Bev and Ben rediscover old feelings. Richie hides a secret from his friend, Eddie. Bill is a writer who can't write an ending until the novelization of his childhood traumas are written. Stan is (spoiler alert) Kevin Costner, but still serves an important purpose for the Club to triumph.
The movie is a blueprint for horror movie direction. Andy is a master horror visual storyteller. The movie is not very scary if you are susceptible to that. It is more a terror than fearful. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even if it did tend to drag in areas.
Now, The Losers' Club reunite to defeat the evil force that overtakes their town of Derry, Maine. Like any good Stephen King adaptation, the supernatural being that terrorizes is not such a huge component. It is the story of friends and the way they are able to colloborate and grow. It: Chapter 2 is a sort of The Big Chill if a murderous clown connected the friends. Bev and Ben rediscover old feelings. Richie hides a secret from his friend, Eddie. Bill is a writer who can't write an ending until the novelization of his childhood traumas are written. Stan is (spoiler alert) Kevin Costner, but still serves an important purpose for the Club to triumph.
The movie is a blueprint for horror movie direction. Andy is a master horror visual storyteller. The movie is not very scary if you are susceptible to that. It is more a terror than fearful. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even if it did tend to drag in areas.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Oct 7, 2018
From the Inside, Out
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book opens like an episode of “Law and Order: SVU” not suitable for primetime.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Green Darkness in Books
May 16, 2018
Having picked <i>Green Darkness</i> up from the local library bookstore sale for only a quarter, I truly had no idea what I was getting myself into. Historical fiction, in any form, is not a genre that I've spent much time with, and coupling that with paranormal romance? Well, we can safely say that I was in for a ride.
<i>Green Darkness</i> shares the harrowing tale of forbidden love in mid-1500s England between an unfortunate peasant girl and a Benedictine monk, betwixt the reigns of King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth - a time when Catholicism and Protestantism (depending on the ruler) were met with persecution. It doesn't begin in that era, however; rather, the story starts in the 1960s, when Celia and her newly wedded husband, Richard Marsdon, arrive at his family's ancestral estate in Sussex. A baffling illness befalls the Marsdons, leaving the unorthodox physician, Doctor Akananda, to unravel the mysterious past that haunts the pair from hundreds of years before.
The twisting tale that unravels of that love affair is only a small part of what I enjoyed about this book, as romance is not typically my cup of tea. What truly enticed me was [a:Anya Seton|18930|Anya Seton|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1224813438p2/18930.jpg]'s faithfulness not only to history, but to location, legend, and use of historical figures. Cowdray House and Ightham Mote are real places, and an unfounded rumor regarding the Mote suggests that a female skeleton was found within its walls - which Seton used as a basis for her story. Through Seton, I discovered an unknown love for Tudor England, and undoubtedly I will read more books set in that time period.
Despite my praise for the book, I was unable to give it a five star rating because of its conclusion: it was as if Seton ran out of fuel. The idea of reincarnation takes a more ridiculous turn when Doctor Akananda hints at more pasts that conveniently interlock the same people. As if that were not enough of an affront, the resolution itself fell flat. With the Marsdon family tragedy conveniently wrapped up, Celia and Stephen seem aloof and their interaction felt a bit too forced. It is for this reason that I gave the book four stars.
<i>Green Darkness</i> shares the harrowing tale of forbidden love in mid-1500s England between an unfortunate peasant girl and a Benedictine monk, betwixt the reigns of King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth - a time when Catholicism and Protestantism (depending on the ruler) were met with persecution. It doesn't begin in that era, however; rather, the story starts in the 1960s, when Celia and her newly wedded husband, Richard Marsdon, arrive at his family's ancestral estate in Sussex. A baffling illness befalls the Marsdons, leaving the unorthodox physician, Doctor Akananda, to unravel the mysterious past that haunts the pair from hundreds of years before.
The twisting tale that unravels of that love affair is only a small part of what I enjoyed about this book, as romance is not typically my cup of tea. What truly enticed me was [a:Anya Seton|18930|Anya Seton|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1224813438p2/18930.jpg]'s faithfulness not only to history, but to location, legend, and use of historical figures. Cowdray House and Ightham Mote are real places, and an unfounded rumor regarding the Mote suggests that a female skeleton was found within its walls - which Seton used as a basis for her story. Through Seton, I discovered an unknown love for Tudor England, and undoubtedly I will read more books set in that time period.
Despite my praise for the book, I was unable to give it a five star rating because of its conclusion: it was as if Seton ran out of fuel. The idea of reincarnation takes a more ridiculous turn when Doctor Akananda hints at more pasts that conveniently interlock the same people. As if that were not enough of an affront, the resolution itself fell flat. With the Marsdon family tragedy conveniently wrapped up, Celia and Stephen seem aloof and their interaction felt a bit too forced. It is for this reason that I gave the book four stars.
JT (287 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
What did I just watch? If someone could enlighten me I would be most grateful. Netflix doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to original films and I have yet to see one that I was genuinely impressed with. Given all the money that Netflix has, you would have thought they might be able to deliver something worth watching.
For Netflix’s latest effort, In The Tall Grass, the film is based on the 2012 novella by Stephen King and son Joe Hill. King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
Becky (Laysla De Oliveira) and Cal Demuth (Avery Whitted) are making the long trip to San Diego where Becky is planning to give up her baby. Stopping outside an abandoned church they hear a child crying for help from inside a field of tall grass. Not wanting to drive off the pair investigate and become separated and lost in the grass maze. Director Vincenzo Natali is no stranger to maze-like scenarios having helmed The Cube, in which six people are involuntarily placed in an endless maze of deadly traps.
King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
With Becky and Cal in danger of being consumed by the grass, they encounter the family of the missing boy they were searching for. The Dad, Ross (Patrick Wilson) discovers Becky and promises her safe passage out of the labyrinth. Cal in the meantime has met the young boy, Tobin (Will Buie Jr.), who makes a few sinister statements. A huge rock in the middle of the field that can turn people insane as well as bend time expands the story’s supernatural element. This becomes apparent when Becky’s boyfriend shows up months after she failed to return home and becomes a focal point of the story.
The cast, except for Patrick Wilson who plays the psycho role to great effect, are forgettable. There is a scattering of creepy moments but it’s not enough to carry the film any further. Natali had to make a few changes that were different from the novella to pack it into a feature-length film and this is probably where it falls down.
For Netflix’s latest effort, In The Tall Grass, the film is based on the 2012 novella by Stephen King and son Joe Hill. King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
Becky (Laysla De Oliveira) and Cal Demuth (Avery Whitted) are making the long trip to San Diego where Becky is planning to give up her baby. Stopping outside an abandoned church they hear a child crying for help from inside a field of tall grass. Not wanting to drive off the pair investigate and become separated and lost in the grass maze. Director Vincenzo Natali is no stranger to maze-like scenarios having helmed The Cube, in which six people are involuntarily placed in an endless maze of deadly traps.
King’s books, in particular, seem hardest to adapt onto the big screen so it should come as no surprise that this supernatural head-scratcher fails miserably.
With Becky and Cal in danger of being consumed by the grass, they encounter the family of the missing boy they were searching for. The Dad, Ross (Patrick Wilson) discovers Becky and promises her safe passage out of the labyrinth. Cal in the meantime has met the young boy, Tobin (Will Buie Jr.), who makes a few sinister statements. A huge rock in the middle of the field that can turn people insane as well as bend time expands the story’s supernatural element. This becomes apparent when Becky’s boyfriend shows up months after she failed to return home and becomes a focal point of the story.
The cast, except for Patrick Wilson who plays the psycho role to great effect, are forgettable. There is a scattering of creepy moments but it’s not enough to carry the film any further. Natali had to make a few changes that were different from the novella to pack it into a feature-length film and this is probably where it falls down.
Belatedly by Ore
8.0
Rate It
Album Watch
music merch BELATEDLY by ORE Share / Embed Wishlist supported by Mysterioso thumbnail ...
indie alternative experimental
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 15, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
If it ain't broke
The second chapter of the extremely popular reboot of Stephen King's It is more of the same...and that's a good thing.
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!