Search
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Flightless Falcon in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Flightless Falcon Still Glides Pretty Well
Flightless Falcon is a light DAW fantasy by Mickey Zucker Reichert that first came out in paperback in July of 2001. Set in your typical fantasy land – lightly coated in magic but sans any fantastical creatures such as dragons, elves, dwarves, and the like – it follows the sad, luckless exploits of an ex-miner named Tamison made useless after a cave in kills his father and brother and leaves him trapped deep in the mine for a few days.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 16, 2022
The Therizinosaurus and Pyroraptor sequences. (2 more)
The final dinosaur battle.
Jeff Goldblum
No chemistry between the cast. (2 more)
Not enough dinosaurs.
Human drama overshadows anything remotely dinosaur related.
You Can't Squeeze Gold From a Dried Up Fossil
Four years after the events of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, dinosaurs now roam free and are a part of everyday life. Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) have been taking care of Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon) while living in a cabin deep within the Sierra Nevada mountains. Biosyn Genetics now utilizes the dinosaurs as a means to try to cure the world’s most devastating diseases.
Maisie’s unique clone DNA is suddenly the world’s only hope for surviving against a swarm of de-extinct giant locusts that is growing in number, spreading from continent to continent, and attacking the source of the world’s food supply. Biosyn kidnaps Maisie along with Beta; the offspring of Blue, the velociraptor Owen trained, who reproduced Beta asexually. Meanwhile, with the help of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) recruits Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) to break into Biosyn in an attempt to prove that they are the ones responsible for the giant locusts.
The big drawing point of Jurassic World Dominion is that not only is it the first time Jeff Goldblum, Laura Dern, and Sam Neill have been together in a Jurassic Park film since the original, but you get to see them interact with the main characters of the Jurassic World films. The problem is that it wasn’t worth the wait. The highlight of the Jurassic Park films are the dinosaurs and it seems like Dominion purposely keeps its audience away from what they came to see for the majority of the film. To make matters worse, all of the human interactions fall flat. What little comedic humor the film tries to provide is met with blank stares and there seems to be more time spent talking about relationships between characters, teenager woes, and villainous characters who have suddenly turned a new leaf over actual dinosaur goodness.
Why anyone decided that Owen’s trademark pose of his arm being extended with his palm being the only defense between them and a wild dinosaur mauling them to death is beyond anyone’s comprehension. It’s done so often here and what’s even more frustrating is that it works every time. The film throws in these sappy and melodramatic excursions that simply aren’t worth the hassle. Claire and Owen attempting to be parents is excruciating and the way this film has decided to force Ellie Sattler and Alan Grant into an awkward, romantic fling is more uncomfortable than it is satisfying.
The film does offer a few highlights, but not nearly enough amongst its close to 150-minute runtime. The motorcycle chase in Malta is the film’s most entertaining action sequence and the pyroraptor scene on top of the ice is also incredibly thrilling. The three-way dinosaur battle during the finale of the film is cool, but it feels like it’s been done previously. As the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World films progressed, they seemed to always try to be topping the T. Rex and yet were never really able to.
Dominion includes the Giganotosaurus; an apex predator that is bigger and meaner than the T. Rex. The finale sees the T.Rex battling the Giganotosaurus with the help of a Therizinosaurus. Earlier in the film, the Therizinosaurus and its long, sharp, finger-like appendages provide the only nod to horror and classic monster movies Dominion provides as it stalks Claire in the jungle near the main Biosyn facility.
The film spends a lot of time focusing on human drama that you don’t care about. Claire and Owen bounce around the world as they try to find Maisie. They’re taken to an underground dinosaur fighting ring by Barry Sembène (Omar Sy), who now works for the CIA. They go on a wild goose chase as they trail behind Rainn Delacourt (Scott Haze), the man who kidnapped Maisie, and then Soyona Santos (Dichen Lachman), a dinosaur smuggler that has a direct line to Biosyn.
What’s disappointing is more of the film could have been devoted to Santos and the dinosaur black market since they are two of the most interesting aspects of the film. Dominion tries to make up for it by making pilot Kayla Watts (DeWanda Wise) the most intriguing new character, but her inclusion feels like it’s too little too late.
With Jurassic World Dominion, a Jurassic World film where dinosaurs are now free and interacting with the modern world shouldn’t feel this longwinded or this tiresome. There are a few action sequences that are worthwhile and Jeff Goldblum has a few great one-liners (“You made a promise to a dinosaur?”), but the film is a monumental disappointment overall.
The film has already made over $415 million at the worldwide box office, so the interest in the franchise is still there. But the chemistry between the cast is almost non-existent and it feels like the film is running on fumes as it tries to offer something new from what is otherwise dried up fossil fuel. If the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is to continue, it desperately needs to go in a refreshing and unseen direction. Now that all of the nostalgia is out of the way, fans deserve a refreshing and unique adventure over what is otherwise a glorified rehash.
Maisie’s unique clone DNA is suddenly the world’s only hope for surviving against a swarm of de-extinct giant locusts that is growing in number, spreading from continent to continent, and attacking the source of the world’s food supply. Biosyn kidnaps Maisie along with Beta; the offspring of Blue, the velociraptor Owen trained, who reproduced Beta asexually. Meanwhile, with the help of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) recruits Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) to break into Biosyn in an attempt to prove that they are the ones responsible for the giant locusts.
The big drawing point of Jurassic World Dominion is that not only is it the first time Jeff Goldblum, Laura Dern, and Sam Neill have been together in a Jurassic Park film since the original, but you get to see them interact with the main characters of the Jurassic World films. The problem is that it wasn’t worth the wait. The highlight of the Jurassic Park films are the dinosaurs and it seems like Dominion purposely keeps its audience away from what they came to see for the majority of the film. To make matters worse, all of the human interactions fall flat. What little comedic humor the film tries to provide is met with blank stares and there seems to be more time spent talking about relationships between characters, teenager woes, and villainous characters who have suddenly turned a new leaf over actual dinosaur goodness.
Why anyone decided that Owen’s trademark pose of his arm being extended with his palm being the only defense between them and a wild dinosaur mauling them to death is beyond anyone’s comprehension. It’s done so often here and what’s even more frustrating is that it works every time. The film throws in these sappy and melodramatic excursions that simply aren’t worth the hassle. Claire and Owen attempting to be parents is excruciating and the way this film has decided to force Ellie Sattler and Alan Grant into an awkward, romantic fling is more uncomfortable than it is satisfying.
The film does offer a few highlights, but not nearly enough amongst its close to 150-minute runtime. The motorcycle chase in Malta is the film’s most entertaining action sequence and the pyroraptor scene on top of the ice is also incredibly thrilling. The three-way dinosaur battle during the finale of the film is cool, but it feels like it’s been done previously. As the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World films progressed, they seemed to always try to be topping the T. Rex and yet were never really able to.
Dominion includes the Giganotosaurus; an apex predator that is bigger and meaner than the T. Rex. The finale sees the T.Rex battling the Giganotosaurus with the help of a Therizinosaurus. Earlier in the film, the Therizinosaurus and its long, sharp, finger-like appendages provide the only nod to horror and classic monster movies Dominion provides as it stalks Claire in the jungle near the main Biosyn facility.
The film spends a lot of time focusing on human drama that you don’t care about. Claire and Owen bounce around the world as they try to find Maisie. They’re taken to an underground dinosaur fighting ring by Barry Sembène (Omar Sy), who now works for the CIA. They go on a wild goose chase as they trail behind Rainn Delacourt (Scott Haze), the man who kidnapped Maisie, and then Soyona Santos (Dichen Lachman), a dinosaur smuggler that has a direct line to Biosyn.
What’s disappointing is more of the film could have been devoted to Santos and the dinosaur black market since they are two of the most interesting aspects of the film. Dominion tries to make up for it by making pilot Kayla Watts (DeWanda Wise) the most intriguing new character, but her inclusion feels like it’s too little too late.
With Jurassic World Dominion, a Jurassic World film where dinosaurs are now free and interacting with the modern world shouldn’t feel this longwinded or this tiresome. There are a few action sequences that are worthwhile and Jeff Goldblum has a few great one-liners (“You made a promise to a dinosaur?”), but the film is a monumental disappointment overall.
The film has already made over $415 million at the worldwide box office, so the interest in the franchise is still there. But the chemistry between the cast is almost non-existent and it feels like the film is running on fumes as it tries to offer something new from what is otherwise dried up fossil fuel. If the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is to continue, it desperately needs to go in a refreshing and unseen direction. Now that all of the nostalgia is out of the way, fans deserve a refreshing and unique adventure over what is otherwise a glorified rehash.
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Silk Road (2021) in Movies
Mar 12, 2021
Squandered a promising story
Silk Road is a 2021 thriller from writer/director Tiller Russell focusing on the true story of Ross Ulbricht who created and operated the darknet marketplace of the same name, selling drugs and other illegal items across the globe. On paper, Silk Road sounds like it should be a fascinating, interesting story and even the trailer makes it appear exciting, but unfortunately it never quite manages to pull off what it promises.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Navitel Navigator Kyrgyzstan
Navigation and Travel
App
Navitel Navigator is a precise offline navigation with free geosocial services and detailed map of...
Navitel Navigator Armenia
Navigation and Travel
App
Navitel Navigator is a precise offline navigation with free geosocial services and detailed map of...
Navitel Navigator Uzbekistan
Navigation and Travel
App
Navitel Navigator is a precise offline navigation with free geosocial services and detailed map of...