Search
Search results
Formula Cartoon All-Stars – Crazy Cart Racing with Your Favorite Cartoon Network Characters
Games and Entertainment
App
Get ready to race with your favorite Cartoon Network characters on spectacular 3D tracks full of...
Handy Photo
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
***** “What does it do? Everything… quickly and easily. It’s really awesome!“ – Life In...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mothergamer (1546 KP) rated Heroes of Cosplay - Season 1 in TV
Apr 3, 2019
Plain and simple, after checking out tonight's episode of Heroes Of Cosplay I had a bad taste in my mouth. It just seemed like yet another reality show, but it missed the point of cosplay. While I know the people on the show had no control over the editing, it was disappointing to see them only focus on the competition aspect of it and not showcase the cosplayers who also do it because they love it and have fun doing it. Many of my friends who cosplay come up with some amazing and great costumes. Some compete and some do it for fun, but both love it and enjoy themselves. I really didn't see a lot of joy on this show. I saw a lot of drama, negativity, and judging the other person because they didn't agree with their cosplay choice.
I know it's for TV and it's "scripted", but it would have been nice to see some positive things, such as how encouraging cosplayers can be and supportive of each other about costume choices, or how helpful they can be when asked about how to make a cosplay better or more cost efficient without missing out on making a great costume. Instead, it was essentially The Jersey Shore of cosplay and it was awful. To have the only good thing be Yaya Han with an amazing League Of Legends cosplay by the way, does not make for a good show. There's also the factor that Mark Cronin, an executive producer of the show basically dismissed male cosplayers in a TV Guide interview by stating that their costumes were simpler because it's just body armor, capes, and weaponry and the female cosplayers were more interesting, sexy, and cool. Seriously? Tell that to one of my friends who MAKES his own armor and weapons, actual chain mail and the like. Trust me, there's no simple about it. Both genders put a lot of work into their cosplay, there isn't one is better than the other. Just from that statement alone, I should have known this show was in trouble and not going to be done right at all.
Then there's this wonderful stunt that Syfy pulled:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=615451091819119&set=a.394389740591923.99759.387115251319372&type=1&theater
That's right. They used the photographers' photos WITHOUT permission and they knew exactly what they were doing, as they cropped them so the watermarks did not show on the page, and did not give them credit or get a copyright release from them. They did it to at least seven photographers that we know of. Of course the people who they blatantly STOLE from were angry and they had every right to be. Not only does this show an outrageous show of disrespect to the cosplay community as well as the photographers' whose work they ripped off, it's mind boggling that they thought they could get away with it without anyone noticing! The only one who actually took the time to try and make it right was Yaya Han who stated on her fan page that she had immediately informed Syfy's PR department about it and was doing everything in her power to make sure that the photographers did get credit for their work.
I like Yaya Han. She comes across as genuinely kind, loves cosplay as much as her fans, and unlike Syfy's craptastic PR department, cares about doing the right thing. This is why I really wanted to like this show. I really did. I was pleased to see she was doing this show about cosplay, but after watching this first episode and seeing that Syfy apologized on their page only AFTER they were caught and informed (But let's face it, they KNOW the rules about copyright infringement) that hey, it's bad to steal an artist's work, not even the fantastic Yaya Han can convince me to watch. It's really a shame, because they had an opportunity to do something great and showcase all the aspects of cosplay and what it means to those who enjoy and love it. Instead, they went the let's be gigantic a-holes route and behaved pretty damn shamefully.
So, no I will not be watching this again. One episode was enough.
I know it's for TV and it's "scripted", but it would have been nice to see some positive things, such as how encouraging cosplayers can be and supportive of each other about costume choices, or how helpful they can be when asked about how to make a cosplay better or more cost efficient without missing out on making a great costume. Instead, it was essentially The Jersey Shore of cosplay and it was awful. To have the only good thing be Yaya Han with an amazing League Of Legends cosplay by the way, does not make for a good show. There's also the factor that Mark Cronin, an executive producer of the show basically dismissed male cosplayers in a TV Guide interview by stating that their costumes were simpler because it's just body armor, capes, and weaponry and the female cosplayers were more interesting, sexy, and cool. Seriously? Tell that to one of my friends who MAKES his own armor and weapons, actual chain mail and the like. Trust me, there's no simple about it. Both genders put a lot of work into their cosplay, there isn't one is better than the other. Just from that statement alone, I should have known this show was in trouble and not going to be done right at all.
Then there's this wonderful stunt that Syfy pulled:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=615451091819119&set=a.394389740591923.99759.387115251319372&type=1&theater
That's right. They used the photographers' photos WITHOUT permission and they knew exactly what they were doing, as they cropped them so the watermarks did not show on the page, and did not give them credit or get a copyright release from them. They did it to at least seven photographers that we know of. Of course the people who they blatantly STOLE from were angry and they had every right to be. Not only does this show an outrageous show of disrespect to the cosplay community as well as the photographers' whose work they ripped off, it's mind boggling that they thought they could get away with it without anyone noticing! The only one who actually took the time to try and make it right was Yaya Han who stated on her fan page that she had immediately informed Syfy's PR department about it and was doing everything in her power to make sure that the photographers did get credit for their work.
I like Yaya Han. She comes across as genuinely kind, loves cosplay as much as her fans, and unlike Syfy's craptastic PR department, cares about doing the right thing. This is why I really wanted to like this show. I really did. I was pleased to see she was doing this show about cosplay, but after watching this first episode and seeing that Syfy apologized on their page only AFTER they were caught and informed (But let's face it, they KNOW the rules about copyright infringement) that hey, it's bad to steal an artist's work, not even the fantastic Yaya Han can convince me to watch. It's really a shame, because they had an opportunity to do something great and showcase all the aspects of cosplay and what it means to those who enjoy and love it. Instead, they went the let's be gigantic a-holes route and behaved pretty damn shamefully.
So, no I will not be watching this again. One episode was enough.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Terror is Our Business in Books
May 30, 2018
Terror is Our Business is the first time I’ve ever read Joe or Kasey Lansdale. I love horror, but by all accounts I’m not nearly as wide read in it as I should be. (At least not when it comes to the more well-known names.) I was a bit nervous about accepting a free copy of the book for review consideration because of that. However, I figured this might give me a taste of Lansdale’s writing to see if I wanted to pursue other works from him.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Care and Management of Lies in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Great Introspection On What it Means to Be Human
Thirty years after the events of the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 follows the story of replicant K (Ryan Gosling) who unearths a secret that could rock the world to its core. I remember watching this for the first time and scoring it high 90’s. While I still think it’s a damn good movie, I feel it falls just out of Masterpiece range.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.