Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Oct 25, 2020
This damn doll just isn't scary, people - and neither is this movie, not a single time. However, for about half the time it does succeed at being effectively creepy and sometimes even sort of fun. I mean this is still just the same two or three rusty clichés and dated, predictable jumpscares on repeat but it has a lot of half-okay vignettes... which all get soured by the surfeit of nonsensical connections to other movies in the series and the insufferable "Hey, remember when THIS happened??" bullcrap. For one I wish they'd let David F. Sandberg be David F. Sandberg here instead of yet another inferior Wan clone like they do with the rest of these. And for two I'm not the first to suggest that this movie being more concerned with milking the Conjuring mythos dry of any miniscule amount of nuance it once had through attempting to spin it thin into some sort of pointless, scuffed 'cinematic universe' kills the standalone decent horror flick this could have been (as well as devalues the originals in the process) - and I hopefully won't be the last - but Jesus Christ did it have to be so fucking long too? When this script was written, did every sentence have to include at least three sets of ellipses between words? Also the non-horror stuff is worlds better than the horror stuff - personally I would have loved to have seen the movie that was pushed to the side in here about this group of orphans finding out something isn't right with Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto or the secretive demonic stuff they've been cooking up in the background after their daughter gets killed. But no, it rushes past all the intriguing stuff in favor of a competent but saccharine and generic cash grab. Far from awful but also not all that much better than the original 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦. Did we really need a prequel... to a prequel (which in and of itself we didn't need)?
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts
Book
'An endlessly fascinating and enjoyable book' Neil MacGregor 'Full of delights' Tom Stoppard An...
Jarvis Cocker recommended 12 Crass Songs by Jeffrey Lewis in Music (curated)
WA
Who are You, Really?
Book
Dr Brian Little challenges what we think we know about how our personality works and is shaped. It's...
Johnny Marr recommended Stay Awhile/I Only Want To Be With You by Dusty Springfield in Music (curated)
Jeeves and the Wedding Bells
Book
This is a gloriously witty novel from Sebastian Faulks using P.G. Wodehouse's much-loved characters,...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Grimm Curse (Grimm Tales #3) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Janna Jennings’ latest book, <i>A Grimm Curse</i>, is set long before the previous two novellas in <i>A Grimm Tales</i> series. Rather than focusing on Andi, a girl from the “real” world, this is a story about the characters in the fairytales – most importantly Cynthia or, whom readers may know her better as, Cinderella.
As in the traditional tale, Cynthia works as a slave for her horrible stepmother and stepsisters – a fate she succumbed to after the death of her father. There is also an upcoming ball at the palace for the prince who is seeking a bride. This, however, is where the similarities end. As well as <i>Cinderella</i>, other fairytales make their appearance, particularly <i>The Frog Prince </i>and <i>Rapunzel</i>. But something is unsettling the characters; they are experiencing bad dreams. Or are they memories?
Cynthia is a much more admirable character than the original Cinderella. She is clever, determined and independent – she does not need a fairy godmother for a start! Neither has she any interest in the prince. If she is going to escape from servitude it will be by her own dexterity, rather than her reliance on someone else to save her.
<i>A Grimm Curse</i> can work as a prequel to the first in the series as it sets the scene that Andi will come across. It can also survive as a stand alone as there is no reference to the events of the other books, however knowledge of these will help the ending make more sense.
Personally I preferred <i>A Grimm Curse</i> to the stories that Jennings’ previously wrote. I had misgivings about the author’s use of fairytales that were not one of those collected by the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. The tales in this book were, however, so therefore fit better with the title.
I strongly recommend this story to readers – adult and adolescent – who are still in love with fairytales or retellings. It is as though it is written with feminism in mind as the heroine does not need a man to rescue her, thus is in keeping with modern times rather than the time period of the originals.
Janna Jennings’ latest book, <i>A Grimm Curse</i>, is set long before the previous two novellas in <i>A Grimm Tales</i> series. Rather than focusing on Andi, a girl from the “real” world, this is a story about the characters in the fairytales – most importantly Cynthia or, whom readers may know her better as, Cinderella.
As in the traditional tale, Cynthia works as a slave for her horrible stepmother and stepsisters – a fate she succumbed to after the death of her father. There is also an upcoming ball at the palace for the prince who is seeking a bride. This, however, is where the similarities end. As well as <i>Cinderella</i>, other fairytales make their appearance, particularly <i>The Frog Prince </i>and <i>Rapunzel</i>. But something is unsettling the characters; they are experiencing bad dreams. Or are they memories?
Cynthia is a much more admirable character than the original Cinderella. She is clever, determined and independent – she does not need a fairy godmother for a start! Neither has she any interest in the prince. If she is going to escape from servitude it will be by her own dexterity, rather than her reliance on someone else to save her.
<i>A Grimm Curse</i> can work as a prequel to the first in the series as it sets the scene that Andi will come across. It can also survive as a stand alone as there is no reference to the events of the other books, however knowledge of these will help the ending make more sense.
Personally I preferred <i>A Grimm Curse</i> to the stories that Jennings’ previously wrote. I had misgivings about the author’s use of fairytales that were not one of those collected by the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. The tales in this book were, however, so therefore fit better with the title.
I strongly recommend this story to readers – adult and adolescent – who are still in love with fairytales or retellings. It is as though it is written with feminism in mind as the heroine does not need a man to rescue her, thus is in keeping with modern times rather than the time period of the originals.
The Gospel in Brief
Book
Written in 1883, 'The Gospel in brief' is Tolstoy's harmonization of the four Christian gospels into...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Jun 27, 2019)
This one's for 2Pac
Contains spoilers, click to show
Child's Play is really a film of two halves - the first being the better half and here's why:
The film starts off introducing us to Buddi (this remakes version of the originals Good Guys), and briefly explains that what will eventually end up as Chucky, is a defective product - a robot that connect to any device to your home, with all his safety protocols switched off.
This is the first thing that I imagine will piss off Chucky purists but it's a change that I thought was fine.
When the plot gets going and 13-year old Andy is acquainted with his new toy, is where the movie really shines. Chucky learns from Andy and just wants to make his new best friend happy, to the point that it paints Chucky as sympathetic. It's actually quite upsetting when he begs not to be shut in a dark closet, after not understanding why his violent tendencies have upset his friend.
The design of the doll itself, I thought was pretty good. He looks creepy as hell, and the way his eyes change colour just add to the whole set up... Plus Mark Hamill is clearly having a ball voicing Chucky - inspired casting right there.
The main problem I have with the cast was Aubrey Plaza, who's great in Parks and Rec, Scott Pilgrim, Legion etc, but here usual wide eye, psycho, sarcastic act doesn't really fit in with her role as mother to Andy.
Then there's the second half of the film, which to me felt very rushed, where Chucky goes full blown crazy, and starts controlling other Buddi dolls - an idea which is absolutely fine (and probably what will happen in the sequel), but the movie skirts by it pretty quickly. After building up for over an hour, a lot of explanations are left out, to make way for a violent show down finale between Chucky and Andy, that almost feels a bit unearned.
Overall though, Child's Play is a pretty fun horror trip, that sets itself apart from the original pretty nicely. I sincerely hope it's not just a one off, and we get more in the future.
The film starts off introducing us to Buddi (this remakes version of the originals Good Guys), and briefly explains that what will eventually end up as Chucky, is a defective product - a robot that connect to any device to your home, with all his safety protocols switched off.
This is the first thing that I imagine will piss off Chucky purists but it's a change that I thought was fine.
When the plot gets going and 13-year old Andy is acquainted with his new toy, is where the movie really shines. Chucky learns from Andy and just wants to make his new best friend happy, to the point that it paints Chucky as sympathetic. It's actually quite upsetting when he begs not to be shut in a dark closet, after not understanding why his violent tendencies have upset his friend.
The design of the doll itself, I thought was pretty good. He looks creepy as hell, and the way his eyes change colour just add to the whole set up... Plus Mark Hamill is clearly having a ball voicing Chucky - inspired casting right there.
The main problem I have with the cast was Aubrey Plaza, who's great in Parks and Rec, Scott Pilgrim, Legion etc, but here usual wide eye, psycho, sarcastic act doesn't really fit in with her role as mother to Andy.
Then there's the second half of the film, which to me felt very rushed, where Chucky goes full blown crazy, and starts controlling other Buddi dolls - an idea which is absolutely fine (and probably what will happen in the sequel), but the movie skirts by it pretty quickly. After building up for over an hour, a lot of explanations are left out, to make way for a violent show down finale between Chucky and Andy, that almost feels a bit unearned.
Overall though, Child's Play is a pretty fun horror trip, that sets itself apart from the original pretty nicely. I sincerely hope it's not just a one off, and we get more in the future.