Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe it has been 19 years since “Unbreakable” arrived in cinemas as the film seemed to setup a sequel but it did not look like it would come to fruition. That all changed in 2016 when “Split” arrived and shocked audiences with a late reveal that showed a connection to the film. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan has wasted no time in bringing the new film to fans with the arrival of “GLASS”. The film picks up soon after the events of “Split” as The Horde embodied by 23 personalities in the form of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) continues to kidnap young girls to serve to his highly dangerous 24th personality The Beast.
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1920 London (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1920 London starts as we meet the Prince Veer (Karwel) and Princess Shivangi (Chopra) living in London, they soon become the latest victim of an evil spirit which takes over Veer’s body, Shivangi must go into her past to find her former lover Jai Singh Gujjar (Joshi) a man that was left banished because of their affair, who has an ability to tackle unwanted spirits.
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
Ross (3284 KP) rated Dark Forge (Masters & Mages #2) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Another slog of a book but with a good overall plot
*** I received a free advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review ***
Dark Forge follows on from Cold Iron and sees the hero, Aranthur, travelling through the desert-lands battling against "The Pure", a group of magikal fundamentalists that believe access to the world's magik should be restricted to those of noble birth.
As a rare treat, the book starts with a lengthy prologue telling of a group of mercenaries working for the Pure attempting to storm an ancient site and gain ownership of a magical artefact. A few dozen pages break from Aranthur was welcome and this was an exciting part of the story. As with the first book, the narrative style is something of a barrier to me, all the mundane details of clothing, horses, weapons are expounded ad nauseum, but when something important happens, or some new magik is used suddenly it's all very vague and hand-wavey.
That brings us back to Aranthur. We pick up with him and his crew acting as messengers for the General's army, relaying messages back and forth across the divisions of the forces. At times this changes to acting as advance scouts, other times running messages through the middle of battles. Given the rest of the story is told from Aranthur's PoV alone, this means we can see a great deal of the action through his eyes.
At long last we are treated to something of an inventory from Aranthur, as he goes over the magik he currently knows and their purpose. This felt like a brilliant improvement over book 1, where he just did a magik thing somehow. However this is short lived as over the course of the book odd words are used, with little explanation (and always in italics, suggesting they are important words but for the life of me I couldn't remember what most of them were).
A major failing for this book for me was that despite all being from one character's PoV, and we hear plenty of his thoughts and feelings, we are not privy to his experimentation with magik or some of his suspicions and theories (he suddenly in the heat of battle tries something he had been thinking about and it works - would have been so much more effective if there had been any hint of this previously). Similarly, so much of it is all metaphysical nonsense which I can't stand and can only see it as a cheap way out for an author as you don't have to explain things if they're all mystical.
The book reads like maybe the 5th in a series, where all the magical aspects and parts and peoples of the world have been solidly embedded, rather than book 2 where the world-building is being done almost real-time and there is something of a making-it-up-as-he-goes-along feel.
The overarching plot of the book is solid, and while I would have liked to see more traditional combat like the first book, and less magical/mystical stuff the action was plentiful and reasonably well told.
As with the first book, its only about 400 pages but felt like so much more to me, and it really was a bit of a slog at times.
I will finish this series with the conclusion when it is released but have enjoyed other series a lot more.
Dark Forge follows on from Cold Iron and sees the hero, Aranthur, travelling through the desert-lands battling against "The Pure", a group of magikal fundamentalists that believe access to the world's magik should be restricted to those of noble birth.
As a rare treat, the book starts with a lengthy prologue telling of a group of mercenaries working for the Pure attempting to storm an ancient site and gain ownership of a magical artefact. A few dozen pages break from Aranthur was welcome and this was an exciting part of the story. As with the first book, the narrative style is something of a barrier to me, all the mundane details of clothing, horses, weapons are expounded ad nauseum, but when something important happens, or some new magik is used suddenly it's all very vague and hand-wavey.
That brings us back to Aranthur. We pick up with him and his crew acting as messengers for the General's army, relaying messages back and forth across the divisions of the forces. At times this changes to acting as advance scouts, other times running messages through the middle of battles. Given the rest of the story is told from Aranthur's PoV alone, this means we can see a great deal of the action through his eyes.
At long last we are treated to something of an inventory from Aranthur, as he goes over the magik he currently knows and their purpose. This felt like a brilliant improvement over book 1, where he just did a magik thing somehow. However this is short lived as over the course of the book odd words are used, with little explanation (and always in italics, suggesting they are important words but for the life of me I couldn't remember what most of them were).
A major failing for this book for me was that despite all being from one character's PoV, and we hear plenty of his thoughts and feelings, we are not privy to his experimentation with magik or some of his suspicions and theories (he suddenly in the heat of battle tries something he had been thinking about and it works - would have been so much more effective if there had been any hint of this previously). Similarly, so much of it is all metaphysical nonsense which I can't stand and can only see it as a cheap way out for an author as you don't have to explain things if they're all mystical.
The book reads like maybe the 5th in a series, where all the magical aspects and parts and peoples of the world have been solidly embedded, rather than book 2 where the world-building is being done almost real-time and there is something of a making-it-up-as-he-goes-along feel.
The overarching plot of the book is solid, and while I would have liked to see more traditional combat like the first book, and less magical/mystical stuff the action was plentiful and reasonably well told.
As with the first book, its only about 400 pages but felt like so much more to me, and it really was a bit of a slog at times.
I will finish this series with the conclusion when it is released but have enjoyed other series a lot more.
David McK (3533 KP) rated Blood's Game in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Like, I'm sure, many others, my first exposure to the writings of [a:Angus Donald|584064|Angus Donald|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] was when I picked up [b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139] on sale: a novel which reimagined the familiar character of Robin Hood, and which I thoroughly enjoyed: so much so that I made it a point to pick up all the novels in that series ([b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139], [b:Holy Warrior|7710240|Holy Warrior (The Outlaw Chronicles, #2)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327539941s/7710240.jpg|10428506], [b:King's Man|11351795|King's Man (The Outlaw Chronicles, #3)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328436464s/11351795.jpg|16281574], [b:Warlord|13077584|Warlord (The Outlaw Chronicles, #4)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1342984405s/13077584.jpg|18244685], [b:Grail Knight|20613734|Grail Knight (The Outlaw Chronicles #5)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1410172817s/20613734.jpg|21976159], [b:The Iron Castle|19857964|The Iron Castle (Outlaw Chronicles, #6)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1402550564s/19857964.jpg|27860558] and (finally) [b:The Death of Robin Hood|29348050|The Death of Robin Hood (The Outlaw Chronicles, #8)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1467543641s/29348050.jpg|49585935]).
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Toy Thief in Books
Jan 31, 2019
There are few bonds closer than brother and sister, and we learn that first hand in D. W. Gillespie’s The Toy Thief. Best described by author Michael Patrick Hicks as a “coming-of-age story,” The Toy Thief encompasses the childhood of strong-headed, tomboyish Jack and her brother Andy. Together, the two must thwart a darkness that threatens their livelihood and that of other children around them.
In this creative piece, Gillespie takes a different approach to the ‘why’ behind things that go missing from our homes. We’ve all lost socks, batteries, Tupperware, toys, etc., only to have these items turn up later somewhere else or, in some cases, never to be seen again. But what if all those things were actually going somewhere, rather than simply being lost as a byproduct of human irresponsibility? In The Toy Thief, a dark entity swipes toys from children in order to feed off the happiness and positive energy that thrives within those items. Using these items as a way to sustain its own life force, the Toy Thief soon finds itself running out of options for staying alive, and that’s where things truly take a dark turn in this story.
I found the characters in The Toy Thief to be lacking, honestly. Though I am a fan of the non-traditional use of the name Jack for a female character, the characters in this story are a bit too flat for my taste–and this is perhaps where I made the decision to give this book three stars, rather than four. Jack, for all her tomboyish quirks and fiery attitude (at least in her older years), shows little of that in her child years. Andy, on the other hand, seems to lack personality altogether. The father, despite being the only parent in their lives, plays less of a role in the book than the cat, Memphis. Actually, Memphis seems to be the most fleshed out of all the characters, with what felt like the most genuine reactions to many of the ongoing events in the story.
On the other hand, Gillespie’s ability to generate sympathy for a villain–in this case, the Toy Thief itself–is phenomenal. I would be a liar if I said I didn’t feel so badly for the Toy Thief that I nearly cried on several occasions and, if you’re a sucker for bad guys like I am, that alone is a good reason to delve into this book. The emotional connection that Gillespie creates between the reader and the Toy Thief is heartrending and brilliant.
Gillespie’s novel does a wonderful job when it comes to the creep factor. There are times I felt my skin crawl while reading this book, if only because his ability to write of dread is on point. However, when it comes to descriptions of the Toy Thief, I felt like his arsenal ran a little dry. More often than not, the creature was described the same way, using the same words and to me, this was a bit of a put-off.
Overall, The Toy Thief is not a bad book. It’s not the best that I’ve read, but it was enjoyable and I was able to suck it down fairly quickly. I didn’t feel like I was force-feeding it to myself, either and for those that know me, that’s a good thing. I definitely look forward to more of Gillespie’s work in the future.
I received this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
In this creative piece, Gillespie takes a different approach to the ‘why’ behind things that go missing from our homes. We’ve all lost socks, batteries, Tupperware, toys, etc., only to have these items turn up later somewhere else or, in some cases, never to be seen again. But what if all those things were actually going somewhere, rather than simply being lost as a byproduct of human irresponsibility? In The Toy Thief, a dark entity swipes toys from children in order to feed off the happiness and positive energy that thrives within those items. Using these items as a way to sustain its own life force, the Toy Thief soon finds itself running out of options for staying alive, and that’s where things truly take a dark turn in this story.
I found the characters in The Toy Thief to be lacking, honestly. Though I am a fan of the non-traditional use of the name Jack for a female character, the characters in this story are a bit too flat for my taste–and this is perhaps where I made the decision to give this book three stars, rather than four. Jack, for all her tomboyish quirks and fiery attitude (at least in her older years), shows little of that in her child years. Andy, on the other hand, seems to lack personality altogether. The father, despite being the only parent in their lives, plays less of a role in the book than the cat, Memphis. Actually, Memphis seems to be the most fleshed out of all the characters, with what felt like the most genuine reactions to many of the ongoing events in the story.
On the other hand, Gillespie’s ability to generate sympathy for a villain–in this case, the Toy Thief itself–is phenomenal. I would be a liar if I said I didn’t feel so badly for the Toy Thief that I nearly cried on several occasions and, if you’re a sucker for bad guys like I am, that alone is a good reason to delve into this book. The emotional connection that Gillespie creates between the reader and the Toy Thief is heartrending and brilliant.
Gillespie’s novel does a wonderful job when it comes to the creep factor. There are times I felt my skin crawl while reading this book, if only because his ability to write of dread is on point. However, when it comes to descriptions of the Toy Thief, I felt like his arsenal ran a little dry. More often than not, the creature was described the same way, using the same words and to me, this was a bit of a put-off.
Overall, The Toy Thief is not a bad book. It’s not the best that I’ve read, but it was enjoyable and I was able to suck it down fairly quickly. I didn’t feel like I was force-feeding it to myself, either and for those that know me, that’s a good thing. I definitely look forward to more of Gillespie’s work in the future.
I received this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy & Punch (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
This had been low on my list of things to see at the film festival but several people recommended it to me so I decided to take a look.
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lucky Grandma (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The synopsis for this sounded okay but I can't say I was blown away. I popped this in my third tier films to watch at the London Film Festival, the "I'll try and see this if there's a gap" films. There was a gap so this ended up being my first film of the festival.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Right off the bat, this latest remake of the classic H.G. Wells story shows us just how suspenseful it can be. It’s the middle of the night and a wide-awake Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) quietly climbs out of bed so as not to disturb her sleeping partner Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). It quickly becomes apparent that she has been waiting and planning for this moment to leave him for some time now, and she is absolutely terrified of waking him up. She creeps through their spacious modern glass home, gathering some of her belongings and occasionally checking a mobile feed of the CCTV camera that she has re-positioned in order to see Adrian asleep in bed. Already the tension is unbearable, and we’re only a few minutes into the movie!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html