Search
Search results
I came away from Us with a number of very different feelings. It kept me seriously on edge for the majority of it, making me feel uncomfortable, and at times confused. It's taken me a while to try and digest it all though and to decide whether or not I actually enjoyed it. It managed to get under my skin and the tension it evoked, the nightmare scenario that plays on your mind afterwards, well I just love all of that! So, did I enjoy it and would I watch it again? Absolutely!
It's difficult to discuss the plot of Us very much without heading into spoiler territory, so I'll briefly recap what you'll already have seen in the trailer, along with a few details which hopefully don't give too much away. We kick things off in Santa Cruz, 1986. A young girl, Adelaide, is at the fair with her parents one evening when she meanders off on her own, heading down the boardwalk and onto the beach. She experiences a terrifying and life changing experience which clearly has had a lasting impact on her when we rejoin her as an adult in present day (now played by Lupita Nyong'O). She has a family of own - husband Gabe (Winston Duke) and two children Zora and Jason. The movie spends a lot of time introducing us to the family and their dynamic as they head out on a family vacation in Santa Cruz, a place which obviously stirs up some strong feelings within Adelaide.
One evening, as the family are preparing to go to bed, they spot four silhouettes out on the driveway. And when those silhouettes force their way into their home, the family realise that the four red-dungaree wearing, scissor-wielding people are actually their doppelgängers - "Us". At this point, the movie seriously switches up a gear, turns into a home invasion horror movie, with each family member trying to deal with their alternate self. And as if things weren't weird enough already, they soon get a hell of a lot weirder! It's a long time before we get any kind of explanation as to what's going on, which only adds to the tension/confusion in the meantime.
The cast are all fantastic, and if you've seen any other reviews of 'Us', you'll probably have seen them focusing their praise on Lupita Nyong'O. I wholeheartedly agree with that - the other version of her, Red, is seriously creepy. Zombie-like and with a chillingly hoarse, rasping voice. Add to that a great musical score, and a last minute twist that I really enjoyed, and overall I'd say I really liked this movie. There are clearly many themes open to interpretation - lots of layers and metaphors that I may pick up on with repeat viewings, or that may continue to go straight over my head! It's a bold film though, although not quite as enjoyable for me as Get Out, the first movie from writer/director/producer Jordan Peele (and also my favourite movie of 2017). The feelings and the way that it lingered in my head made it a very impressive movie and an interesting experience all the same.
It's difficult to discuss the plot of Us very much without heading into spoiler territory, so I'll briefly recap what you'll already have seen in the trailer, along with a few details which hopefully don't give too much away. We kick things off in Santa Cruz, 1986. A young girl, Adelaide, is at the fair with her parents one evening when she meanders off on her own, heading down the boardwalk and onto the beach. She experiences a terrifying and life changing experience which clearly has had a lasting impact on her when we rejoin her as an adult in present day (now played by Lupita Nyong'O). She has a family of own - husband Gabe (Winston Duke) and two children Zora and Jason. The movie spends a lot of time introducing us to the family and their dynamic as they head out on a family vacation in Santa Cruz, a place which obviously stirs up some strong feelings within Adelaide.
One evening, as the family are preparing to go to bed, they spot four silhouettes out on the driveway. And when those silhouettes force their way into their home, the family realise that the four red-dungaree wearing, scissor-wielding people are actually their doppelgängers - "Us". At this point, the movie seriously switches up a gear, turns into a home invasion horror movie, with each family member trying to deal with their alternate self. And as if things weren't weird enough already, they soon get a hell of a lot weirder! It's a long time before we get any kind of explanation as to what's going on, which only adds to the tension/confusion in the meantime.
The cast are all fantastic, and if you've seen any other reviews of 'Us', you'll probably have seen them focusing their praise on Lupita Nyong'O. I wholeheartedly agree with that - the other version of her, Red, is seriously creepy. Zombie-like and with a chillingly hoarse, rasping voice. Add to that a great musical score, and a last minute twist that I really enjoyed, and overall I'd say I really liked this movie. There are clearly many themes open to interpretation - lots of layers and metaphors that I may pick up on with repeat viewings, or that may continue to go straight over my head! It's a bold film though, although not quite as enjoyable for me as Get Out, the first movie from writer/director/producer Jordan Peele (and also my favourite movie of 2017). The feelings and the way that it lingered in my head made it a very impressive movie and an interesting experience all the same.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
In Red Sparrow, Jennifer Lawrence (of Hunger Games fame) portrays Russian ballet dancer Dominika who is grievously injured at the peak of her career. Without the ability to continue dancing, she is at risk of losing not only her home, but the medical care that her sickly mother so desperately needs. In a final act of desperation, she reaches out to her uncle (masterfully portrayed by Matthias Schoenaerts), who is not only family, but also the deputy director of Russia’s intelligence agency, the SVR. He offers the means to not only keep them housed, but also to ensure that her mother continues to get the very best treatment and care from her private nurses. With no other option but to agree, she reluctantly takes an assignment to “entertain” a powerful Russian figure with the intent to swap out his cell phone, with another provided by her uncle. In an emotionally intense scene she witnesses a heinous act of murder and is forced to make a decision, join those who carried out the murder and become a Red Sparrow or die.
Dominika is then sent to the training school where all Red Sparrows learn their craft. They are taught manipulation by any means necessary, identifying what their target desires and utilizing this desire to get what they want. It’s brutal training that few succeed at, where each pupil uses their body and their minds to get information from their subjects. Dominika’s personal strength of both will and body are tested, until a call comes in from the SVR that they are in need of her newly acquired talents. She is given an opportunity to prove her worth to the state by traveling to Budapest, to get close to a C.I.A. agent, and convince him to give up the name of a mole who has been providing secrets to the Americans. This is where the dangerous game of cat and mouse starts between her and her C.I.A. target Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton).
Jennifer Lawrence in her portrayal of a strong, yet desperate Russian woman is both believable and saddening. She mastered her Russian accent and it comes across naturally. The audience sees the constant struggle between what she must do to protect her mother and the lengths that she must go to, to acquire the information the SVR needs to rout out the mole. Her character goes through numerous physical, emotional and psychological tortures as she grows closer to her end game. For a Red Sparrow failure is not an option, as failure means death.
As a spy movie, it regularly keeps you guessing up until the very end. You keep asking yourself whether Nate will be able to turn Dominika against her country and become an operative for the C.I.A., or is she simply playing the part as the sparrow and using his trust against him? As an audience member you never truly know who to trust or which side Dominika is on, and that’s what keeps the movie so intriguing throughout.
“Red Sparrow” is one of those rare films that keeps you on the edge of your seat through the entire film. As soon as you think you know where it’s going you are suddenly turned in another direction. You think you know the answers, only to be wrong the next minute…or are you? Red Sparrow is by far one of the best spy movies that I have seen in a long time. Even though there isn’t a lot of action it provides the intrigue of an intense chess game, planning multiple moves ahead to arrive at checkmate in the very end, and to that end it succeeds brilliantly.
Dominika is then sent to the training school where all Red Sparrows learn their craft. They are taught manipulation by any means necessary, identifying what their target desires and utilizing this desire to get what they want. It’s brutal training that few succeed at, where each pupil uses their body and their minds to get information from their subjects. Dominika’s personal strength of both will and body are tested, until a call comes in from the SVR that they are in need of her newly acquired talents. She is given an opportunity to prove her worth to the state by traveling to Budapest, to get close to a C.I.A. agent, and convince him to give up the name of a mole who has been providing secrets to the Americans. This is where the dangerous game of cat and mouse starts between her and her C.I.A. target Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton).
Jennifer Lawrence in her portrayal of a strong, yet desperate Russian woman is both believable and saddening. She mastered her Russian accent and it comes across naturally. The audience sees the constant struggle between what she must do to protect her mother and the lengths that she must go to, to acquire the information the SVR needs to rout out the mole. Her character goes through numerous physical, emotional and psychological tortures as she grows closer to her end game. For a Red Sparrow failure is not an option, as failure means death.
As a spy movie, it regularly keeps you guessing up until the very end. You keep asking yourself whether Nate will be able to turn Dominika against her country and become an operative for the C.I.A., or is she simply playing the part as the sparrow and using his trust against him? As an audience member you never truly know who to trust or which side Dominika is on, and that’s what keeps the movie so intriguing throughout.
“Red Sparrow” is one of those rare films that keeps you on the edge of your seat through the entire film. As soon as you think you know where it’s going you are suddenly turned in another direction. You think you know the answers, only to be wrong the next minute…or are you? Red Sparrow is by far one of the best spy movies that I have seen in a long time. Even though there isn’t a lot of action it provides the intrigue of an intense chess game, planning multiple moves ahead to arrive at checkmate in the very end, and to that end it succeeds brilliantly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Creature in Books
Jan 18, 2019
Creature by Hunter Shea may begin slowly, but it quickly coalesces into a heartrending, terrifying bid for survival against a monster far deadlier than those I’ve read in other books. Shea weaves a masterful tale that is nothing short of stark reality: and for that, I am grateful in the saddest of ways. For some readers, Creature will hit close to home, and for others it will be an eye-opening experience.
Kate Woodson suffers from several auto-immune diseases that leave her crippled and unable to take care of herself. Fortunately, she has a supportive and loving husband, Andrew, that takes care of her, and a loving pup named Buttons. In a desperate attempt to make her feel better, Andrew takes her on a trip to a secluded cottage in Maine, but that is where things quickly turn horrifying for something lurks in the shadows.
Creature is not action-packed. At least, not early on. The first chunk of the novel focuses on Kate and Andrew’s relationship, and while that might sound dull and boring, in this instance it’s anything but that. In fact, I found it heartwarming and entirely necessary. It allows readers to truly get a grasp on the disastrous effects of auto-immune diseases–not only on the afflicted, but on their loved ones as well. The time Shea spends on these two also allows for an astronomical amount of character development: I became attached to Kate and Andrew, to their love for one another, to their hardships.
I also found myself relating to Kate more than I expected, which is where Shea really hooked me in as a reader–those that have followed The Ghastly Grimoire for any amount of time know that I suffer from two auto-immune diseases myself. This is actually the first book where I read the afterword, and there I learned that his accurate portrayal has a source: his wife.
When the book does pick up, it’s fast-paced and edge-of your seat action. As in, I read the final 110 pages in one sitting because I couldn’t put the book down. I’d love to go into detail about the symbolism threaded throughout the latter half of the book, but that, unfortunately, would also be a major spoiler. I can say this, however: Shea managed to make me gag in revulsion and cry.
That said, Creature is a wonderful, enlightening read. It’s rare that a book draws deep emotions from me, and even more so that a horror book truly gets under my skin. Shea did both of these things, and I definitely look forward to reading more of his work.
This book was given to me by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Kate Woodson suffers from several auto-immune diseases that leave her crippled and unable to take care of herself. Fortunately, she has a supportive and loving husband, Andrew, that takes care of her, and a loving pup named Buttons. In a desperate attempt to make her feel better, Andrew takes her on a trip to a secluded cottage in Maine, but that is where things quickly turn horrifying for something lurks in the shadows.
Creature is not action-packed. At least, not early on. The first chunk of the novel focuses on Kate and Andrew’s relationship, and while that might sound dull and boring, in this instance it’s anything but that. In fact, I found it heartwarming and entirely necessary. It allows readers to truly get a grasp on the disastrous effects of auto-immune diseases–not only on the afflicted, but on their loved ones as well. The time Shea spends on these two also allows for an astronomical amount of character development: I became attached to Kate and Andrew, to their love for one another, to their hardships.
I also found myself relating to Kate more than I expected, which is where Shea really hooked me in as a reader–those that have followed The Ghastly Grimoire for any amount of time know that I suffer from two auto-immune diseases myself. This is actually the first book where I read the afterword, and there I learned that his accurate portrayal has a source: his wife.
When the book does pick up, it’s fast-paced and edge-of your seat action. As in, I read the final 110 pages in one sitting because I couldn’t put the book down. I’d love to go into detail about the symbolism threaded throughout the latter half of the book, but that, unfortunately, would also be a major spoiler. I can say this, however: Shea managed to make me gag in revulsion and cry.
That said, Creature is a wonderful, enlightening read. It’s rare that a book draws deep emotions from me, and even more so that a horror book truly gets under my skin. Shea did both of these things, and I definitely look forward to reading more of his work.
This book was given to me by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Emma Montague is an Englishwoman living in the U.S. She left behind her parents as soon as she could: feeling trapped by her mother's snobbery and outgoing personality, so different from Emma's quiet and introverted self. But life in the high-powered banking world in New York City isn't exactly for Emma either. She finds everyone so false: women who only care about clothes and finding a man, too many nights at bars, and pressure to use dating apps. Her one long-term relationship winds up nowhere, and so Emma finds herself on the move again: this time to the beach town of Westport, CT. She takes a break from banking and finds herself renting a house in this seaside town. Emma quickly finds herself falling for landlord, Dominic, a bartender in Westport. A father to six-year-old Jesse, Dominic seems to be the opposite of Emma in every way. Emma isn't sure that the two could ever really be together, but she can't seem to stop her heart from falling for Dominic. Are they meant to be?
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Songs of Red Current Wine (Colors of Love #6) in Books
Mar 29, 2021
Because of Carl, this becomes a much darker read than the others, but Ms Locey nails it here.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 6 in the Colors Of Love series (you have NO idea, how many times I typed the spelling of Colors!) But you do not have to read the others. Books one and 4 were 5 star reads, from me, and 2 and 3 were 4 stars. I missed book 5!
This is, I thought, a much darker read than all the others, and I read this book in one sitting, 200 odd pages before 8am!
As with the other books, only one of the two main characters have a say, and Carl's voice is powerful. Damaged and broken, but powerful nonetheless. His strong, but often depressive voice makes up for the lack that Tigh doesn't have a say.
Going home for his best friend's funeral would have caused many pain, but for Carl it pushes him over the edge, and into a faster path of self destruction. Only Tigh's strength and help helps Carl pull himself out of that pit of despair, along with a couple of surprising people who I didn't think would help him.
Tigh is Carl's best friend's younger brother, a LOT younger than Carl, but it's not thrown about too much. I liked that it pops up at key points, but only really when it's needed.
Carl's self destruction is painful reading, it really is. You can see it happening right in front of you, and you can't stop it. He was already on a downward spiral when we meet him, but Mike's death was the straw, really.
Because of Carl, this becomes a much darker read than the others, but Ms Locey nails it here. It's very difficult reading, but also, you get sucked in so bad because you want to see how Carl pulls out of it, you NEED to see how this plays out with Tigh and before you know it, you've ran out of tears, of cheers and of pages.
And Arn pops up, I love him! Love the little digs he makes about his clients, who are the subjects of the previous books. That made me laugh. But Arn is sad, and I don't want him to be. Will he get a book?? I hope so.
Trigger warnings for alcohol abuse (Carl) and PTSD recovery (Tigh)
5 amazing stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 6 in the Colors Of Love series (you have NO idea, how many times I typed the spelling of Colors!) But you do not have to read the others. Books one and 4 were 5 star reads, from me, and 2 and 3 were 4 stars. I missed book 5!
This is, I thought, a much darker read than all the others, and I read this book in one sitting, 200 odd pages before 8am!
As with the other books, only one of the two main characters have a say, and Carl's voice is powerful. Damaged and broken, but powerful nonetheless. His strong, but often depressive voice makes up for the lack that Tigh doesn't have a say.
Going home for his best friend's funeral would have caused many pain, but for Carl it pushes him over the edge, and into a faster path of self destruction. Only Tigh's strength and help helps Carl pull himself out of that pit of despair, along with a couple of surprising people who I didn't think would help him.
Tigh is Carl's best friend's younger brother, a LOT younger than Carl, but it's not thrown about too much. I liked that it pops up at key points, but only really when it's needed.
Carl's self destruction is painful reading, it really is. You can see it happening right in front of you, and you can't stop it. He was already on a downward spiral when we meet him, but Mike's death was the straw, really.
Because of Carl, this becomes a much darker read than the others, but Ms Locey nails it here. It's very difficult reading, but also, you get sucked in so bad because you want to see how Carl pulls out of it, you NEED to see how this plays out with Tigh and before you know it, you've ran out of tears, of cheers and of pages.
And Arn pops up, I love him! Love the little digs he makes about his clients, who are the subjects of the previous books. That made me laugh. But Arn is sad, and I don't want him to be. Will he get a book?? I hope so.
Trigger warnings for alcohol abuse (Carl) and PTSD recovery (Tigh)
5 amazing stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Amadeus (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Amadeus starts as an elderly Antonio Salieri (Abraham) admitting that he killed Mozart, leading to him getting taken to the insane asylum. Salieri recounts his story of his small town beginnings dreaming of being a composer and after a moment of fate he ends up in a position where he can learn music leading to him job as head conductor to the king of Austria. Mozart (Hulce) is the world renowned composer that has taken the notice of all around him with Salieri dreaming of one day being as good as Mozart.
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Underwater was in my top picks for February, it looked like a cross between Deep Rising, Alien and a selection of Doctor Who episodes... I was definitely in.
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html