Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mass Effect Trilogy in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
An Example Of Why Dialogue Options In Video Games Are More Trouble Than They Are Worth
The first Mass Effect game was released 10 years ago this year and it pioneered many RPG mechanics that are still being used in RPG’s today. Like any pioneer, it spawned many clones that tried to emulate the cover based shooting mechanics that the game used, the romance situations that took place between the characters and the infamous dialogue options that the player could choose from during conversation cutscenes.
Mass Effect wasn’t the first game to do it, there are plenty of earlier examples of the mechanic being used before in games, such as the Fallout series. Bioware actually included the mechanic themselves in their earlier game in Knights Of The Old Republic, but its inclusion Mass Effect is what brought it to the mainstream and soon every developer was wanting a piece of the dialogue tree pie.
I never owned the original Mass Effect, the most exposure I got of it was through a few mates that owned the game at the time, but eventually the mechanic did end up creeping into games that I did own including; Alpha Protocall, Deus Ex, any Telltale game, The Amazing Spiderman 2, (for some reason,) and even in Uncharted 4.
As much as I enjoy a good ‘choose your own adventure,’ story and as much as I appreciate the trust that developers put in gamers to be able to tell their own story; whether that be through dialogue options, moral choices or customization options, I want you to tell me your story. I didn’t pay 50 quid to get given a setting and a bunch of characters to tell my own story. You guys get paid to craft amazingly immersive works of fiction, so do your job and suck me in. Whenever I’m playing a game with dialogue options and I am starting to get invested in the story and the characters, the inevitable dialogue tree pops up and takes me right out of the experience.
Sure, there are some movies that I watch and wonder why a writer or a director made a certain creative choice, but even if I don’t agree with the decision, it is the creator’s job to make those tough choices and that is what makes great art. One of my favorite movies of the last decade is Nicolas Winding Refn’s ‘Drive’ and that is purely because of the creative choices that the cast and crew made on that movie. I know people that hate Drive and I’m sure if given the option they would change it to be a less daring, more cookie cutter action thriller, but that wouldn’t have earned my respect like it has. Sometimes creators need to stop handholding the audience and make a tough call, even if it could potentially be a polarizing one.
In fact, when I think about it, all of my favorite stories are adored so much because of the definitive, drastic calls that they dare to make. I already spoke about Drive, Fight Club’s twist took some balls to pull off, the ambitious non linear storytelling of Pulp Fiction makes it iconic, Breaking Bad was consistently shocking and yet brilliant, MGS is insanely unconventional and I love it for it and The Last Of Us delivers a divisive finishing blow that we have no choice but to partake in.
That is how you tell a great story and that is how you stand out as a creator, by doing something that no one else could do, especially not your audience. When I come home after a long day at work, I don’t want to do much thinking. I want to relax and be told a story by the folks that are best at doing so. Personally, I think that you should believe in the story you are telling enough to make a definitive decision and if you don’t, is it really a story that’s worth telling?
Mass Effect wasn’t the first game to do it, there are plenty of earlier examples of the mechanic being used before in games, such as the Fallout series. Bioware actually included the mechanic themselves in their earlier game in Knights Of The Old Republic, but its inclusion Mass Effect is what brought it to the mainstream and soon every developer was wanting a piece of the dialogue tree pie.
I never owned the original Mass Effect, the most exposure I got of it was through a few mates that owned the game at the time, but eventually the mechanic did end up creeping into games that I did own including; Alpha Protocall, Deus Ex, any Telltale game, The Amazing Spiderman 2, (for some reason,) and even in Uncharted 4.
As much as I enjoy a good ‘choose your own adventure,’ story and as much as I appreciate the trust that developers put in gamers to be able to tell their own story; whether that be through dialogue options, moral choices or customization options, I want you to tell me your story. I didn’t pay 50 quid to get given a setting and a bunch of characters to tell my own story. You guys get paid to craft amazingly immersive works of fiction, so do your job and suck me in. Whenever I’m playing a game with dialogue options and I am starting to get invested in the story and the characters, the inevitable dialogue tree pops up and takes me right out of the experience.
Sure, there are some movies that I watch and wonder why a writer or a director made a certain creative choice, but even if I don’t agree with the decision, it is the creator’s job to make those tough choices and that is what makes great art. One of my favorite movies of the last decade is Nicolas Winding Refn’s ‘Drive’ and that is purely because of the creative choices that the cast and crew made on that movie. I know people that hate Drive and I’m sure if given the option they would change it to be a less daring, more cookie cutter action thriller, but that wouldn’t have earned my respect like it has. Sometimes creators need to stop handholding the audience and make a tough call, even if it could potentially be a polarizing one.
In fact, when I think about it, all of my favorite stories are adored so much because of the definitive, drastic calls that they dare to make. I already spoke about Drive, Fight Club’s twist took some balls to pull off, the ambitious non linear storytelling of Pulp Fiction makes it iconic, Breaking Bad was consistently shocking and yet brilliant, MGS is insanely unconventional and I love it for it and The Last Of Us delivers a divisive finishing blow that we have no choice but to partake in.
That is how you tell a great story and that is how you stand out as a creator, by doing something that no one else could do, especially not your audience. When I come home after a long day at work, I don’t want to do much thinking. I want to relax and be told a story by the folks that are best at doing so. Personally, I think that you should believe in the story you are telling enough to make a definitive decision and if you don’t, is it really a story that’s worth telling?
Chris Hooker (419 KP) rated No Way Home (A Science Fiction Anthology) in Books
Jan 12, 2018
I received [No Way Home] from author [Harry Manners] in exchange for a honest review. This collection of short stories with the theme of being stranded, in one way or another, was a thought provoking read.
[To Sing of Chaos and Eternal Night] by [Lucas Bale] took me a few days to get past the beginning. The concept of a soldier who has lost all being and is just thought sent to robotic bodies and told to fight the enemy was interesting. As I stated, unfortunately, it was a slow start but the ending was worth the read.
[XE, or People Are Strange] by [S. Elliot Brandis]gave a new meaning to getting away from it all. The main character, Bradley, volunteers to be put in a shuttle to find a new habitable plant. His mission is one way and he is to send a signal back to Earth if it is a safe place. Apparently, though, he is not the first, or only, person on the new planet. I really liked the twist in this story.
[Grist] by [J.S. Collyer] is a futuristic view where one entity has taken control and all others are forced to work for them, often underground. Wyatt was not born into this so he remembers fresh air and sun. He wants to escape and be free again. Just daring to think this way can be deadly and he must know who to trust. The question this story had me asking was what is life worth?
[Merely A Madness] by [S.W. Fairbrother] was one I was really excited to see in this collection because I had read [The Secret Dead] and loved it. [Merely A Madness] did not disappoint in anyway. Earth has become a hostile place but most people have escaped off planet. Hannah loves old earth and Mullen sets up a holiday because he aims to please. This would be like current day people going to a wild west ranch, real but not too real. Things go horribly wrong and Mullen must make a hard choice. This story was one of my favorites by far.
[Revolver] by [Michael Patrick Hicks] was the most overtly political and also one of the most enjoyable. The concept of reality TV and politics preying on the unfortunates is so scary because it is not far from our current reality. I really loved the statement made in this one.
[The Happy Place] by [Harry Manners] was a story of a dream gone horribly wrong. Michael has always dreamed of going to the stars and with his wife this dream becomes a reality as he is chosen to colonize Mars. Years later he realizes his dream may be a nightmare as he begins to lose everything he loves. The only thing that keeps him going is 'the Happy Place', a virtual reality of his memories from Earth, but keeping this secret from those he loves may cost him even more. This is the third work I have read from [Harry Manners] and I love how he handles loneliness and making hard decisions. His characters are always deeper than they first appear.
[Renata] by [Nadine Matheson] is a futuristic spy story wrapped in a mob hit with political intrigue. Yes, I enjoyed this one as well. Kaoru is an assassin who gets his assignments from his brother. His latest target is in the past. This is the assignment that may just kill him.
[Cold Witness] by [A.S. Sinclair] was a mental thriller. John Marshall is sent to check out an abandoned military complex that he is told little about. When he arrives there he hears rumors of strange things involving the final project at the base. Upon arrival he begins hallucinating and his memories begin to meld with others. The question of what is reality is constant throughout.
All the stories were well written and enjoyable. I also liked how each author wrote an "Afterword" that explained a little of how they came up with the concept they did. I recommend this to any fan of futuristic and science fiction.
[To Sing of Chaos and Eternal Night] by [Lucas Bale] took me a few days to get past the beginning. The concept of a soldier who has lost all being and is just thought sent to robotic bodies and told to fight the enemy was interesting. As I stated, unfortunately, it was a slow start but the ending was worth the read.
[XE, or People Are Strange] by [S. Elliot Brandis]gave a new meaning to getting away from it all. The main character, Bradley, volunteers to be put in a shuttle to find a new habitable plant. His mission is one way and he is to send a signal back to Earth if it is a safe place. Apparently, though, he is not the first, or only, person on the new planet. I really liked the twist in this story.
[Grist] by [J.S. Collyer] is a futuristic view where one entity has taken control and all others are forced to work for them, often underground. Wyatt was not born into this so he remembers fresh air and sun. He wants to escape and be free again. Just daring to think this way can be deadly and he must know who to trust. The question this story had me asking was what is life worth?
[Merely A Madness] by [S.W. Fairbrother] was one I was really excited to see in this collection because I had read [The Secret Dead] and loved it. [Merely A Madness] did not disappoint in anyway. Earth has become a hostile place but most people have escaped off planet. Hannah loves old earth and Mullen sets up a holiday because he aims to please. This would be like current day people going to a wild west ranch, real but not too real. Things go horribly wrong and Mullen must make a hard choice. This story was one of my favorites by far.
[Revolver] by [Michael Patrick Hicks] was the most overtly political and also one of the most enjoyable. The concept of reality TV and politics preying on the unfortunates is so scary because it is not far from our current reality. I really loved the statement made in this one.
[The Happy Place] by [Harry Manners] was a story of a dream gone horribly wrong. Michael has always dreamed of going to the stars and with his wife this dream becomes a reality as he is chosen to colonize Mars. Years later he realizes his dream may be a nightmare as he begins to lose everything he loves. The only thing that keeps him going is 'the Happy Place', a virtual reality of his memories from Earth, but keeping this secret from those he loves may cost him even more. This is the third work I have read from [Harry Manners] and I love how he handles loneliness and making hard decisions. His characters are always deeper than they first appear.
[Renata] by [Nadine Matheson] is a futuristic spy story wrapped in a mob hit with political intrigue. Yes, I enjoyed this one as well. Kaoru is an assassin who gets his assignments from his brother. His latest target is in the past. This is the assignment that may just kill him.
[Cold Witness] by [A.S. Sinclair] was a mental thriller. John Marshall is sent to check out an abandoned military complex that he is told little about. When he arrives there he hears rumors of strange things involving the final project at the base. Upon arrival he begins hallucinating and his memories begin to meld with others. The question of what is reality is constant throughout.
All the stories were well written and enjoyable. I also liked how each author wrote an "Afterword" that explained a little of how they came up with the concept they did. I recommend this to any fan of futuristic and science fiction.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Last Song in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Ronnie does not want to spend the summer with her dad. Her dad left them three years ago, and she hasn’t really forgiven him for it. She hated him for it so much, that she refused to take his calls, quit playing the piano, and never read the letters he sent her. What is she going to do all summer stuck with a dad she hates in a small town with nothing but sand on every side of her, no clubs, no friends…
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched both film adaptations of Stieg Larsson's book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and I loved them. It was only natural that at that point, I told myself I would read the book. As all bibliophiles like myself know our to-be-read piles are constantly growing, and sometimes we tend to add books to it faster than we'll ever read them. The result of that is, ultimately, we don't get around to the books we really want to read, because there are just too many of them. That was precisely the case with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo until I found it at one of my local thrift stores. It might have been the library too, I really don't recall. I do know that I paid no more than a dollar for my copy, and it is undoubtedly the best dollar I have ever spent.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an utterly enthralling crime thriller, centered around Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist convicted of libel, Lisbeth Salander, a ward of the government with a penchant for hacking, and the age-old mystery of what happened to Harriet Vanger: a daughter of the prominent Vanger family that went missing in 1966 and is presumed to have been murdered. Filled to the brim with corporate corruption, misogynistic views, and sharp twists that could not be done justice by the films, Larsson has undoubtedly woven a masterpiece - one that I was unable to put down until the last page was read. I mean that quite literally, as I didn't go to bed until after five this morning.
It's not very often that a book snares me so strongly that I cannot stop myself from turning its pages, and the way in which this one sunk its claws into me has not happened in a very, very long time. The plot is complicated and filled with dead ends, but every single bit of information is also vital to the progression of the story. At first read, that might sound a bit contradictory, and in a way it truly is. When Blomkvist is hired by the aging Henrik Vanger to look into Harriet's disappearance, he is given a cold case with no open leads. Each and every time he finds something promising, it fails to work out. In many cases, this is not an easy style to pull off. Other books that have created this sense of hopelessness have largely succeeded in boring me half to death, and in some cases I've dropped them.
When it comes to the characters in a book, the way in which they are written can easily make or break the story. Extreme distaste, in some cases, can lead to difficulty in finishing a book for some readers, while others loath the so-called "Mary Sue" character. In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Larsson's characters are part of relationships that are largely unconventional, especially to the mind of a girl raised in the conservative Southern United States and. The interaction that results from these relationships help to drive the story forward by not only introducing the reader to a wide range of characters, but by also providing those characters, some of which are deeply flawed, with an impressive amount of depth.
While some of the content is, without a doubt, sensitive material for some readers, Larsson also uses The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as an opportunity to highlight statistics on sexual assault in Sweden, and for that I must give him props. Even in America, there is a lack of seriousness when it comes to allegations of rape and, more recently, things tend to get brushed under the rug, for lack of a better term, if the perpetrator of the crime has any reputation that could be deemed worthwhile. It is a disgusting, dehumanizing way of treating a very real issue, and Larsson hones in on this while simultaneously creating a very strong, independent heroine that readers like myself can relate to, sometimes unfortunately so.
The next book is definitely on my to-read list, but I don't know when I'll get around to it. Hopefully, I'll be fortunate enough to cross it on one of my thrift-shopping trips. It was most definitely worth my sleepless night.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an utterly enthralling crime thriller, centered around Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist convicted of libel, Lisbeth Salander, a ward of the government with a penchant for hacking, and the age-old mystery of what happened to Harriet Vanger: a daughter of the prominent Vanger family that went missing in 1966 and is presumed to have been murdered. Filled to the brim with corporate corruption, misogynistic views, and sharp twists that could not be done justice by the films, Larsson has undoubtedly woven a masterpiece - one that I was unable to put down until the last page was read. I mean that quite literally, as I didn't go to bed until after five this morning.
It's not very often that a book snares me so strongly that I cannot stop myself from turning its pages, and the way in which this one sunk its claws into me has not happened in a very, very long time. The plot is complicated and filled with dead ends, but every single bit of information is also vital to the progression of the story. At first read, that might sound a bit contradictory, and in a way it truly is. When Blomkvist is hired by the aging Henrik Vanger to look into Harriet's disappearance, he is given a cold case with no open leads. Each and every time he finds something promising, it fails to work out. In many cases, this is not an easy style to pull off. Other books that have created this sense of hopelessness have largely succeeded in boring me half to death, and in some cases I've dropped them.
When it comes to the characters in a book, the way in which they are written can easily make or break the story. Extreme distaste, in some cases, can lead to difficulty in finishing a book for some readers, while others loath the so-called "Mary Sue" character. In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Larsson's characters are part of relationships that are largely unconventional, especially to the mind of a girl raised in the conservative Southern United States and. The interaction that results from these relationships help to drive the story forward by not only introducing the reader to a wide range of characters, but by also providing those characters, some of which are deeply flawed, with an impressive amount of depth.
While some of the content is, without a doubt, sensitive material for some readers, Larsson also uses The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as an opportunity to highlight statistics on sexual assault in Sweden, and for that I must give him props. Even in America, there is a lack of seriousness when it comes to allegations of rape and, more recently, things tend to get brushed under the rug, for lack of a better term, if the perpetrator of the crime has any reputation that could be deemed worthwhile. It is a disgusting, dehumanizing way of treating a very real issue, and Larsson hones in on this while simultaneously creating a very strong, independent heroine that readers like myself can relate to, sometimes unfortunately so.
The next book is definitely on my to-read list, but I don't know when I'll get around to it. Hopefully, I'll be fortunate enough to cross it on one of my thrift-shopping trips. It was most definitely worth my sleepless night.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 21, 2019)
A worthy sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
The original Happy Death Day was a real pleasant surprise. A cross between Groundhog Day and Scream, with our heroine being killed by a baby face mask wearing killer every day, only to wake up again at the start of the same day. With a long list of potential suspects, and slowly feeling the effects of dying repeatedly, she set about trying to find the killers identity. Much of what made the first movie so enjoyable was largely down to lead character Tree, played by Jessica Rothe and the intensely hilarious way that she approached the whole situation. It wasn't exactly a horror movie, more of a comedy thriller.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)