Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gravity (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
We’ve long been spoiled by depictions of space in most science fiction, or at least in popular science fiction. A frontier, a futuristic ocean of sorts for maritime-type traversal. It’s hardly ever depicted as a particularly dangerous place. That’s exactly why Alfanso Cuaron’s Gravity is so incredibly refreshing and surprisingly so at that. All he really had to do was set out to depict a story in space that highlights how dangerous it really is. And boy does he succeed. Gravity is not only intriguing in its science, but also an incredibly gripping thriller.
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) in Movies
Jun 5, 2017
The creations of the pirate lore brought to life (3 more)
Original Cast return for the sequel
The addition of new incredible casting choices such as Bill Nighy
It maintains the franchises humour in new ways
Giving Pirate Lore a new image
Since I have reviewed the first, fourth and fifth films of this franchise, I thought it to be necessary for me to review the second and third installments as well.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Paris for One and Other Stories in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I don’t remember when the last time I read a collection of short stories, but I had to try this one. I have to tell you, it was quite entertaining and attractive. In the book I received, there were eleven short stories, in other publications there might be only nine. I never tried to write a review for short stories, so don’t really know how to do it. I will begin by trying my best to share a short description of each of them.
Paris for One: When reliable Nell is tricked by her boyfriend, and ends up in Paris by herself she is shocked at the beginning. Strange place with no language knowledge makes her stressed at the beginning, but she finds herself, new love, and new adventures during this weekend stay in Paris.
Between the Tweets: When a person named Becca, accuses a known person of cheating on his wife, on twitter, Frank is hired to find out who Becca is. But he is really surprised when he finds out who this girl is, and it brings even bigger twist in the story.
Love in the Afternoon: When the couple, who is exhausted from daily family life, decide to spend a weekend for two in the hotel, they notice, that they actually forgot how to be alone. So, they need to learn it again.
A Bird in the Hand: When Beth and her husband go to a friend’s party, she suddenly meets a man with whom she had an affair. There has been years since they seen each other, but they find out why they fell apart in the first place. Now, Beth has another difficult decision to make.
Crocodile Shoes: When Sam’s gym bag gets mixed up with a rich lady’s one, all she finds in it is a pair of crocodile leather shoes. She doesn’t have any option but to wear them, and it turns her ordinary life around.
Holdups: The Jewellery shop where Alice was working is being robbed by burglars. If there were three according to the owner, why there were only two according to Alice? Mini detective story with unexpected twist.
Honeymoon in Paris: This story is one of my favourites in this book. There are two stories which are happening in Paris. One happens in 2012 and another one in 1912. Latest story is about a couple on honeymoon, where the groom chooses work over his Mrs. The second story is about a newlywed couple, where wife’s mind gets poisoned by an evil woman. These two stories cross each other and shows, that true love always wins.
Last Year's Coat: Evie desperately needs a new coat, but the one she likes cost fortune, and their family can’t afford it. All you need to do is really wish for something, and in some way it will reach you.
Thirteen Days with John C.: One day Miranda finds a phone. Suddenly she starts getting texts from John. She gets very intrigued, even though she is married; she still decides to meet him. The meeting goes not the way she expected it to go, so in the end she has to take some decisions.
Margot: When Em gets stranded in the airport due to delayed flight, she meets this old lady Margot. They spend some quality time together at the airport, and after that go different ways. Only after a while, Em figures out why Margot lives her life to the fullest.
The Christmas List: While running around London for that perfect Christmas dinner with the in law’s, Chrissie ends up in a black taxi. While talking with the driver, she realises, that pleasing needy in law’s, who doesn’t like her, is not what she wants to do this season. And she takes an impulsive decision instead, which might change her life.
All the stories in this book are really different, but at the same time similar. Some of them are about love, some of them about family, others, about making those hard decisions of who you really are. Most of the stories have an interesting twist at the end, or as I call it “the right thing to do” action. Even if the situation is not the best one, there is still that action to take, to make it right for everybody. I enjoyed the variety of characters used in this book, that doesn’t make it boring and keeps interest going. I tend to believe, that author has great love for Paris, as some of the plots are set in the city of lights. My most favourite were “Paris for one” and “Honeymoon in Paris”, they were the longest ones, and for me, the most interesting ones. It is a very easy read. The writing style used in this book is easy and understandable; the stories are not dragging, so it is lovely one sitting read. I really enjoyed the topics author was discussing in this book, she found those little day to day problems, and showed possible solutions to them. I enjoyed this book, and if you looking for something light and entertaining but with great meaning to read, give it a try.
Paris for One: When reliable Nell is tricked by her boyfriend, and ends up in Paris by herself she is shocked at the beginning. Strange place with no language knowledge makes her stressed at the beginning, but she finds herself, new love, and new adventures during this weekend stay in Paris.
Between the Tweets: When a person named Becca, accuses a known person of cheating on his wife, on twitter, Frank is hired to find out who Becca is. But he is really surprised when he finds out who this girl is, and it brings even bigger twist in the story.
Love in the Afternoon: When the couple, who is exhausted from daily family life, decide to spend a weekend for two in the hotel, they notice, that they actually forgot how to be alone. So, they need to learn it again.
A Bird in the Hand: When Beth and her husband go to a friend’s party, she suddenly meets a man with whom she had an affair. There has been years since they seen each other, but they find out why they fell apart in the first place. Now, Beth has another difficult decision to make.
Crocodile Shoes: When Sam’s gym bag gets mixed up with a rich lady’s one, all she finds in it is a pair of crocodile leather shoes. She doesn’t have any option but to wear them, and it turns her ordinary life around.
Holdups: The Jewellery shop where Alice was working is being robbed by burglars. If there were three according to the owner, why there were only two according to Alice? Mini detective story with unexpected twist.
Honeymoon in Paris: This story is one of my favourites in this book. There are two stories which are happening in Paris. One happens in 2012 and another one in 1912. Latest story is about a couple on honeymoon, where the groom chooses work over his Mrs. The second story is about a newlywed couple, where wife’s mind gets poisoned by an evil woman. These two stories cross each other and shows, that true love always wins.
Last Year's Coat: Evie desperately needs a new coat, but the one she likes cost fortune, and their family can’t afford it. All you need to do is really wish for something, and in some way it will reach you.
Thirteen Days with John C.: One day Miranda finds a phone. Suddenly she starts getting texts from John. She gets very intrigued, even though she is married; she still decides to meet him. The meeting goes not the way she expected it to go, so in the end she has to take some decisions.
Margot: When Em gets stranded in the airport due to delayed flight, she meets this old lady Margot. They spend some quality time together at the airport, and after that go different ways. Only after a while, Em figures out why Margot lives her life to the fullest.
The Christmas List: While running around London for that perfect Christmas dinner with the in law’s, Chrissie ends up in a black taxi. While talking with the driver, she realises, that pleasing needy in law’s, who doesn’t like her, is not what she wants to do this season. And she takes an impulsive decision instead, which might change her life.
All the stories in this book are really different, but at the same time similar. Some of them are about love, some of them about family, others, about making those hard decisions of who you really are. Most of the stories have an interesting twist at the end, or as I call it “the right thing to do” action. Even if the situation is not the best one, there is still that action to take, to make it right for everybody. I enjoyed the variety of characters used in this book, that doesn’t make it boring and keeps interest going. I tend to believe, that author has great love for Paris, as some of the plots are set in the city of lights. My most favourite were “Paris for one” and “Honeymoon in Paris”, they were the longest ones, and for me, the most interesting ones. It is a very easy read. The writing style used in this book is easy and understandable; the stories are not dragging, so it is lovely one sitting read. I really enjoyed the topics author was discussing in this book, she found those little day to day problems, and showed possible solutions to them. I enjoyed this book, and if you looking for something light and entertaining but with great meaning to read, give it a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien Abduction (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien Abduction starts by informing us this is based on actual footage found, *sigh*. This before going off to show us footage that looks like is being shot through a pair of fingers with screaming in the background. All this and the camera gets dropped out the spacecraft. The film then decides to inform us about The Brown Mountain Lights a location in North Carolina that has a high disappearance rate. Time for the experts and locals to give us their stories about what has been happening and a theory behind what is happening. More reading before we find out who the camera belonged too.
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
The final curtain.
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
Hadley (567 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Apr 30, 2019
Great main character (1 more)
Beautiful writing
Over usage of some words (1 more)
Secondary characters have hardly a back story
In the horror genre, I have very few favorite female writers, but Mary Shelley is one of them. The way she weaves environments with character defining scenes is beautifully done in 'Frankenstein.' At the tender age of 18, Shelley was able to convey grief and loss through a single story. She created a relatable 'creature' that many readers will have pity for, but also an obsessive young man that can hardly be hated. Some people may be intimidated by the more diverse English language from the early 1800's, but, in my opinion, the story would not have had the same impact if it had been written today.
Not just horror readers will enjoy 'Frankenstein,' but also those who like to read philosophy. Shelley brings up life discerning questions that even society meddles with today. It's amazing to think that a two century old book discusses problems we still deal with.
The book begins with a sea captain that picks up a stranger that was stranded on a raft of ice, and this man has a fascinating story to tell. The entire book is a letter written by the sea captain to his sister, which he details every bit of Victor Frankenstein's several year tale. Readers get to follow Frankenstein's life from the moment his 'creature' is made to the end of his days, which traverses the globe. When Shelley begins to lull over her love of environments, she quickly picks up with character or story development that keeps our attention from wandering.
'Frankenstein' focuses on the need to be loved and accepted to live a happy existence,as well as reaching our dreams, but Shelley shows how achieving such things can cause a crushing defeat in the latter pursuit: "Night was far advanced when I came to the halfway resting-place, and seated myself beside the fountain. The stars shone at intervals, as the clouds passed from over them; the dark pines rose before me, and every here and there a broken tree lay on the ground: it was a scene of wonderful solemnity, and stirred strange thoughts within me. I wept bitterly; and clasping my hands in agony, I exclaimed, 'Oh! stars, and clouds, and winds, ye are all about to mock me: if ye really pity me, crush sensation and memory; let me become as nought; but if not, depart, depart, and leave me in darkness.' "
There are other characters we read of, including Frankenstein's best friend, Henry, and his long time love interest, Elizabeth (both of who grew up with Frankenstein). Henry comes from a well-to-do merchant family, while Elizabeth was orphaned from a wealthy family, then adopted by the Frankensteins as a future wife for Victor. Unfortunately, we learn little about them or Victor's family, that when any of them do die, it's not felt personally by the reader. There are other characters that had major events in the story, but as with the friends, they weren't developed enough to bring up any emotion at their passing.
After Frankenstein sets out after his creation,we meet the 'creature' at the top of a mountain. He is devastated that his creator hates him, and that the other humans he has met also hated him. "I expected this reception,' said the demon. 'All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.' "
The 'creature' gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: he either makes him a female companion or he will kill everyone Frankenstein loves and adores." 'What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive,and it shall content me.' " Although, by this time, the 'creature' has already murdered Frankenstein's youngest brother, Victor agrees to make him a companion, but with serious regret soon after.
The majority of the story concerns Frankenstein trying fool-hardly to protect all those he loves while the 'creature' murders them one by one. The most surprising of the murders is Henry's. After Frankenstein changes his mind on making another creation, the 'creature' quickly finds Henry and kills him, but Frankenstein is accused of the murder and spends quite some time in prison for it. "But I was doomed to live; and, in two months, found myself as awaking from a dream, in a prison, stretched on a wretched bed, surrounded by gaolers, turnkeys, bolts, and all the miserable apparatus of a dungeon. "
Frankenstein is eventually released from prison when the evidence doesn't add up, and witnesses come forward, claiming to have seen Victor elsewhere at the time of the murder. Frankenstein is, at this time, in a drowning melancholy and madness, but this doesn't stop him from marrying Elizabeth. The 'creature' foretold Frankenstein that he would be with him on his wedding night, and Victor uses this to his advantage - arming himself with pistols and knives on the honeymoon. Yet, to no avail, Frankenstein is unable to outlive or outsmart the 'creature' at any turn.
'Frankenstein' is a must-read for all readers. Although many horror stories today pertain to a creature killing it's master, none of them can reach the grief stricken peaks as Shelley has. Every passage in this book reads like poetry. Every interaction between Frankenstein and his 'creature' is fascinating to the reader. And, before Frankenstein dies, he leaves the sea captain with words of wisdom that even readers could benefit from: "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
Highly recommend!
Not just horror readers will enjoy 'Frankenstein,' but also those who like to read philosophy. Shelley brings up life discerning questions that even society meddles with today. It's amazing to think that a two century old book discusses problems we still deal with.
The book begins with a sea captain that picks up a stranger that was stranded on a raft of ice, and this man has a fascinating story to tell. The entire book is a letter written by the sea captain to his sister, which he details every bit of Victor Frankenstein's several year tale. Readers get to follow Frankenstein's life from the moment his 'creature' is made to the end of his days, which traverses the globe. When Shelley begins to lull over her love of environments, she quickly picks up with character or story development that keeps our attention from wandering.
'Frankenstein' focuses on the need to be loved and accepted to live a happy existence,as well as reaching our dreams, but Shelley shows how achieving such things can cause a crushing defeat in the latter pursuit: "Night was far advanced when I came to the halfway resting-place, and seated myself beside the fountain. The stars shone at intervals, as the clouds passed from over them; the dark pines rose before me, and every here and there a broken tree lay on the ground: it was a scene of wonderful solemnity, and stirred strange thoughts within me. I wept bitterly; and clasping my hands in agony, I exclaimed, 'Oh! stars, and clouds, and winds, ye are all about to mock me: if ye really pity me, crush sensation and memory; let me become as nought; but if not, depart, depart, and leave me in darkness.' "
There are other characters we read of, including Frankenstein's best friend, Henry, and his long time love interest, Elizabeth (both of who grew up with Frankenstein). Henry comes from a well-to-do merchant family, while Elizabeth was orphaned from a wealthy family, then adopted by the Frankensteins as a future wife for Victor. Unfortunately, we learn little about them or Victor's family, that when any of them do die, it's not felt personally by the reader. There are other characters that had major events in the story, but as with the friends, they weren't developed enough to bring up any emotion at their passing.
After Frankenstein sets out after his creation,we meet the 'creature' at the top of a mountain. He is devastated that his creator hates him, and that the other humans he has met also hated him. "I expected this reception,' said the demon. 'All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.' "
The 'creature' gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: he either makes him a female companion or he will kill everyone Frankenstein loves and adores." 'What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive,and it shall content me.' " Although, by this time, the 'creature' has already murdered Frankenstein's youngest brother, Victor agrees to make him a companion, but with serious regret soon after.
The majority of the story concerns Frankenstein trying fool-hardly to protect all those he loves while the 'creature' murders them one by one. The most surprising of the murders is Henry's. After Frankenstein changes his mind on making another creation, the 'creature' quickly finds Henry and kills him, but Frankenstein is accused of the murder and spends quite some time in prison for it. "But I was doomed to live; and, in two months, found myself as awaking from a dream, in a prison, stretched on a wretched bed, surrounded by gaolers, turnkeys, bolts, and all the miserable apparatus of a dungeon. "
Frankenstein is eventually released from prison when the evidence doesn't add up, and witnesses come forward, claiming to have seen Victor elsewhere at the time of the murder. Frankenstein is, at this time, in a drowning melancholy and madness, but this doesn't stop him from marrying Elizabeth. The 'creature' foretold Frankenstein that he would be with him on his wedding night, and Victor uses this to his advantage - arming himself with pistols and knives on the honeymoon. Yet, to no avail, Frankenstein is unable to outlive or outsmart the 'creature' at any turn.
'Frankenstein' is a must-read for all readers. Although many horror stories today pertain to a creature killing it's master, none of them can reach the grief stricken peaks as Shelley has. Every passage in this book reads like poetry. Every interaction between Frankenstein and his 'creature' is fascinating to the reader. And, before Frankenstein dies, he leaves the sea captain with words of wisdom that even readers could benefit from: "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
Highly recommend!
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Ghost of Villa Winter in Books
Mar 12, 2021
A cult (1 more)
Description of environment
All of the characters (1 more)
Amateur writing mistakes
Little does the reader know when they pick up a copy of The Ghost of Villa Winter by Isobel Blackthorn that a cult is lurking about inside the pages.
We begin our journey with Clarissa ,our main character, boarding a tour bus where she lets her personality shine through, which turns out to be extremely judgmental of anyone who isn't like her, or doesn't fit into the categories she places them in. For example, the driver of the tour bus is automatically labeled by Clarissa as a bad man because he has an uneven face and a French accent, and much of the same is said about the other seven passengers, as well. When she finally manages to stop judging the passengers, readers find out that Clarissa is somewhat of a psychic: "Ghosts spoke a language of their own and if a member of the spirit world inhabited the abandoned abode, she was sure to pick up on it. She was never wrong in these matters. Only three of the thirty or more premises she'd investigated on so-called ghost tours had contained a legitimate ghost. She prided herself on her mediumistic prowess. She was apt to pick up on preternatural inhabitants of places said not to be haunted. Sometimes she thought she could singlehandedly re-write history based on information she had gleaned, but that was being arrogant. She followed her dreams and her visions and her intuition, that was all. A natural psychic and a cynic to boot. "
It turns out that Clarissa is on the tour to see if she can encounter any spirits that may be at the infamous Villa Winter; a place that is believed to have been a secret Nazi base, as well as a place for human experiments - - - the tower was also believed to have been used as a lighthouse for German U-boats - - - which, in reality, Villa Winter is an actual place that exists on the Canary Islands in Spain.
The Ghost of Villa Winter is the fourth book in Blackthorn's Canary Islands Mysteries series, but it can be easily read as an introduction to it because you don't need any background information to understand what is going on. The novel takes on the usual tropes of a murder-mystery plot (a body is found, people are stranded and trying to figure out who among them is the murderer). Agatha Christie is one of the best authors of the murder-mystery genre who loved using her knowledge of poisons in her stories - - - Blackthorn treats the tropes with the right amount of respect which makes The Ghost of Villa Winter a pretty good story.
My major complaint for the Ghost of Villa Winter are the characters, which I found every single one quite unlikable, and even by the end, I couldn't bring myself to care at all for Clarissa. The way that she judged everyone so harshly, and her viewpoint that if no one acted the way she wanted them to, she would believe something was wrong with them that needed to be addressed in a rude manner: "He was the most anxious man she had come across in a long time. Anxious, unsure of himself and preoccupied. Far too self-conscious. The way he'd aligned his plate at lunch. That was obsessive-compulsive. And he certainly couldn't handle Fred Spice. She was sure he could be charming with pretty young ladies, patronizing even, but around her he was awkward. It was clear, too, that he was broken. It wouldn't be easy being an author knowing as you aged that all of your success was behind you and your future held nothing but diminishment. Writing was one of those activities you could pursue until you dropped and many successful authors did just that. As irritating as he could be, she felt sorry for him. "
The other characters are all seen from Clarissa's viewpoint, so they come off quite annoying, but at one point it seemed like Blackthorn was trying to redeem Clarissa's negative qualities by making her an advocate for a possibly wrongly convicted man. This story line didn't come off as redemption for me, but rather to fuel Clarissa's need to be important and in the right. Blackthorn failed to make any of the characters grow above pettiness. If a reader doesn't have a character to root for, the story becomes unenjoyable - - - which is the main reason I gave the book such a low rating; the murder-mystery was interesting, but the characters were not.
The murder, a woman who may have been part of a cult, is found inside a nailed-up crate with a tattoo of a number on her body being one of the only clues that puts Clarissa into sleuth-mode. After believing that one of the tourists is the killer, she decides to keep the discovery of the murder between her and Richard - - - a crime author who came to Villa Winter in hopes of a book inspiration. The two slowly begin to investigate their fellow tourists to figure out who had the mind and motive to kill the young woman, but this doesn't seem to be as easy as it is in Richard's books. I did have a problem though with the ending which ends up being very reminiscent of a majority of short stories: the ending came abruptly and the pieces fell into a place that was unbelievable.
I had never read any of Blackthorn's books before, so I didn't have much of an expectation reading the Ghost of Villa Winter. Unfortunately, I came away from this one pretty dissatisfied because all of the interesting points in the story (such as the cult) are rarely shown/explored further. Also, the fact that 'ghost' is in the title, I was pretty let down with only a couple of scenes where a ghost actually shows up, one such short-lived scene: "She [Clarissa] was about to carry on when a figure appeared in one of the uppermost tower windows. Appeared, and then was gone. At least, what she thought to be a figure. Could have been a ghost. " The scenes are so short that I believe 'ghost' shouldn't be in the title because it's misleading.
With quite a few amateur writing mistakes, and unlikable characters, I don't think I will read anymore of the books in this series. I loved the idea of a cult murder and a haunting in a possible Nazi base, but too much of the focus in the story was on Clarissa's judgmental outlook on everything that it ended up not being the story it could have been. I can only recommend this book to people who want a quick murder-mystery (what most call the genre 'cozy mystery'), but for paranormal lovers, the ghosts practically disappeared within a few pages.
We begin our journey with Clarissa ,our main character, boarding a tour bus where she lets her personality shine through, which turns out to be extremely judgmental of anyone who isn't like her, or doesn't fit into the categories she places them in. For example, the driver of the tour bus is automatically labeled by Clarissa as a bad man because he has an uneven face and a French accent, and much of the same is said about the other seven passengers, as well. When she finally manages to stop judging the passengers, readers find out that Clarissa is somewhat of a psychic: "Ghosts spoke a language of their own and if a member of the spirit world inhabited the abandoned abode, she was sure to pick up on it. She was never wrong in these matters. Only three of the thirty or more premises she'd investigated on so-called ghost tours had contained a legitimate ghost. She prided herself on her mediumistic prowess. She was apt to pick up on preternatural inhabitants of places said not to be haunted. Sometimes she thought she could singlehandedly re-write history based on information she had gleaned, but that was being arrogant. She followed her dreams and her visions and her intuition, that was all. A natural psychic and a cynic to boot. "
It turns out that Clarissa is on the tour to see if she can encounter any spirits that may be at the infamous Villa Winter; a place that is believed to have been a secret Nazi base, as well as a place for human experiments - - - the tower was also believed to have been used as a lighthouse for German U-boats - - - which, in reality, Villa Winter is an actual place that exists on the Canary Islands in Spain.
The Ghost of Villa Winter is the fourth book in Blackthorn's Canary Islands Mysteries series, but it can be easily read as an introduction to it because you don't need any background information to understand what is going on. The novel takes on the usual tropes of a murder-mystery plot (a body is found, people are stranded and trying to figure out who among them is the murderer). Agatha Christie is one of the best authors of the murder-mystery genre who loved using her knowledge of poisons in her stories - - - Blackthorn treats the tropes with the right amount of respect which makes The Ghost of Villa Winter a pretty good story.
My major complaint for the Ghost of Villa Winter are the characters, which I found every single one quite unlikable, and even by the end, I couldn't bring myself to care at all for Clarissa. The way that she judged everyone so harshly, and her viewpoint that if no one acted the way she wanted them to, she would believe something was wrong with them that needed to be addressed in a rude manner: "He was the most anxious man she had come across in a long time. Anxious, unsure of himself and preoccupied. Far too self-conscious. The way he'd aligned his plate at lunch. That was obsessive-compulsive. And he certainly couldn't handle Fred Spice. She was sure he could be charming with pretty young ladies, patronizing even, but around her he was awkward. It was clear, too, that he was broken. It wouldn't be easy being an author knowing as you aged that all of your success was behind you and your future held nothing but diminishment. Writing was one of those activities you could pursue until you dropped and many successful authors did just that. As irritating as he could be, she felt sorry for him. "
The other characters are all seen from Clarissa's viewpoint, so they come off quite annoying, but at one point it seemed like Blackthorn was trying to redeem Clarissa's negative qualities by making her an advocate for a possibly wrongly convicted man. This story line didn't come off as redemption for me, but rather to fuel Clarissa's need to be important and in the right. Blackthorn failed to make any of the characters grow above pettiness. If a reader doesn't have a character to root for, the story becomes unenjoyable - - - which is the main reason I gave the book such a low rating; the murder-mystery was interesting, but the characters were not.
The murder, a woman who may have been part of a cult, is found inside a nailed-up crate with a tattoo of a number on her body being one of the only clues that puts Clarissa into sleuth-mode. After believing that one of the tourists is the killer, she decides to keep the discovery of the murder between her and Richard - - - a crime author who came to Villa Winter in hopes of a book inspiration. The two slowly begin to investigate their fellow tourists to figure out who had the mind and motive to kill the young woman, but this doesn't seem to be as easy as it is in Richard's books. I did have a problem though with the ending which ends up being very reminiscent of a majority of short stories: the ending came abruptly and the pieces fell into a place that was unbelievable.
I had never read any of Blackthorn's books before, so I didn't have much of an expectation reading the Ghost of Villa Winter. Unfortunately, I came away from this one pretty dissatisfied because all of the interesting points in the story (such as the cult) are rarely shown/explored further. Also, the fact that 'ghost' is in the title, I was pretty let down with only a couple of scenes where a ghost actually shows up, one such short-lived scene: "She [Clarissa] was about to carry on when a figure appeared in one of the uppermost tower windows. Appeared, and then was gone. At least, what she thought to be a figure. Could have been a ghost. " The scenes are so short that I believe 'ghost' shouldn't be in the title because it's misleading.
With quite a few amateur writing mistakes, and unlikable characters, I don't think I will read anymore of the books in this series. I loved the idea of a cult murder and a haunting in a possible Nazi base, but too much of the focus in the story was on Clarissa's judgmental outlook on everything that it ended up not being the story it could have been. I can only recommend this book to people who want a quick murder-mystery (what most call the genre 'cozy mystery'), but for paranormal lovers, the ghosts practically disappeared within a few pages.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.