Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lilies of the Field (1963) in Movies
Jan 31, 2022
Strong Performances by Poitier and Skala
The film that Sidney Poitier won his Best Actor In A Leading Role Oscar for (becoming the first Black Man to do so) is the type of film that is rarely made these days - a simple film of love, faith, friendship and inspiration.
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem in Video Games
Oct 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 28, 2019)
Psychological Warfare
Contains spoilers, click to show
Eternal Darkness- why does no one talk about this game. It is amazing, its horrorfying, terroryfying, spooky, creepy, thrilling, chilling and so much more. Plus it came out only for the gamecube, which is huge because nintendo doesnt put out or release alot of horror games. This, luigi's mansion and Resident Evil 4 were the big horror games for the gamecube. Maybe more came out, but those 3 were the big ones. Lets talk about this game, shall we....
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Voice of the Elders in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Voice of the Elders by Greg Ripley is a very well written book that anyone who has a strong connection with earth and nature would be drawn to right away. This is well received as the book puts a lot of focus on the harder topics of what we face with global warming and as a race if we do not start thinking about sustainability as a complete way of life. It also brings to light the idea that even if sustainability is the best for the planet as whole companies such as big oil and nuclear power may not be all that interested because it takes profit away from them, showing just how harmful human greed can be.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.