Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I swung between wanting to see this and not, had it been a normal world then of course I would have gone regardless, but as it is I wasn't having strong feelings about this one.
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Invited in Books
Jun 25, 2019
A Decent Ghost Mystery
I had been eyeing The Invited by Jennifer McMahon since it first came out at the end of April. When a book club I'm in decided to make that their June read, I knew this was my opportunity to actually buy it. While it wasn't as great as I had imagined, it wasn't a bad read.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Windmill (The Windmill Massacre) (2016) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I spend a bit too much time on Facebook, of that there’s no doubt. As a result, I tend to pay attention to what movies my friends talk about. One such friend is horror author Edward Lorn, and one such movie that popped up in my feed because of him is The Windmill.
Set in Holland, The Windmill is a fun film that follows the traditional “haunted locale” story. Like most movies of this nature, viewers are presented with an abandoned building (the windmill), an old legend, and a supernatural being. In this case, the windmill is considered a gateway to Hell, courtesy of a miller that, after making a deal with the devil, ground the bones of his victims rather than flour. When a group of individuals embark on a tour of Holland’s windmills, what appears to be an every day, run of the mill (pun totally intended) attraction quickly turns deadly.
The Windmill‘s cast of characters fits several different roles, from the uppity doctor to the vengeful model and even the cliché mad woman with daddy issues. These characters remain true to their personality types and don’t tend to waiver, even as things continue to spin out of control, for which I am thankful – even though it means that they’re downright horrible people. The acting is fairly well done in comparison to a lot of available horror movies, too.
One of the things that did bother me about this movie was an extremely brief lack of continuity. At the point in which the tour bus breaks down in middle of the road, an incident occurs and the bus falls over. That isn’t altogether strange, aside from the fact that it appears to have been knocked over by a bird flying into the window. Whether that was intentional or not, I did find it to be a bit amusing. Since I don’t consider this to be much of a spoiler, I figured I’d simply point it out.
While The Windmill contains several elements of the slasher genre, it appeals more to the psyche via the use of the demonic haunting and vivid hallucinations that reveal the deepest, darkest secrets of its cast. It’s not the best film out there, but it is certainly entertaining in its own right and is undoubtedly worth the watch for a bit of cheesy horror fun. The title, also known as The Windmill Massacre, can be found on Netflix in the United States.
Set in Holland, The Windmill is a fun film that follows the traditional “haunted locale” story. Like most movies of this nature, viewers are presented with an abandoned building (the windmill), an old legend, and a supernatural being. In this case, the windmill is considered a gateway to Hell, courtesy of a miller that, after making a deal with the devil, ground the bones of his victims rather than flour. When a group of individuals embark on a tour of Holland’s windmills, what appears to be an every day, run of the mill (pun totally intended) attraction quickly turns deadly.
The Windmill‘s cast of characters fits several different roles, from the uppity doctor to the vengeful model and even the cliché mad woman with daddy issues. These characters remain true to their personality types and don’t tend to waiver, even as things continue to spin out of control, for which I am thankful – even though it means that they’re downright horrible people. The acting is fairly well done in comparison to a lot of available horror movies, too.
One of the things that did bother me about this movie was an extremely brief lack of continuity. At the point in which the tour bus breaks down in middle of the road, an incident occurs and the bus falls over. That isn’t altogether strange, aside from the fact that it appears to have been knocked over by a bird flying into the window. Whether that was intentional or not, I did find it to be a bit amusing. Since I don’t consider this to be much of a spoiler, I figured I’d simply point it out.
While The Windmill contains several elements of the slasher genre, it appeals more to the psyche via the use of the demonic haunting and vivid hallucinations that reveal the deepest, darkest secrets of its cast. It’s not the best film out there, but it is certainly entertaining in its own right and is undoubtedly worth the watch for a bit of cheesy horror fun. The title, also known as The Windmill Massacre, can be found on Netflix in the United States.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Eat the Night in Books
May 16, 2018
If you’re looking for a good ol’, classic horror tale in the flavor of <i>Evil Dead</i> or <i>Army of Darkness</i>, Tim Waggoner’s <i>Eat the Night</i> is a must-read. It’s fast paced and filled with the sort of material horror fans like me grew up with. Death cult? Check. Mass suicide? Check. Possession? Check. Vivid, gore-filled scenes? Hideous monsters from another dimension? Reincarnation? Check, check, and check. I can’t even begin to describe how hungrily I devoured this book, and though it has its ridiculous moments, I’ll definitely be looking out for more from this author!
Thirty years ago, retired rockstar Mark Maegarr and his devout followers, in true Jonestown fashion, committed suicide in tropic Suriname. It was Maegarr’s belief that this ritual would hasten the approach of Entropy, or the total dissolution of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for Maegarr, something went wrong and he spends the next several decades reaching from beyond the grave to finish what he started.
Joan Lantz and her husband, Jon, are first time home-owners. Burdened with a troubled past, Joan is glad to finally have a home of her own. After waking from a horrific nightmare detailing the grisly end that befell Mark Maegarr and his cult, she discovers a hidden basement in her home, which had not been on the house’s plans and was previously unknown to the home’s last owners, who were friends of hers.
Kevin Benecke works for Maintenance, a secretive company that is reminiscent of Men in Black. Aware that they cannot save the world from its fate, their goal is to slow the coming of the end down from the sidelines. He’s an unfortunate sort of fellow and things don’t happen to go the way they ought to in his line of work, but he has his own boyish charm.
Together, these three characters weave a story that is brimming with horrific scenes and action. The plot is fairly solid as well, and Waggoner doesn’t hold back when it comes to the laws of the world he has created to coexist alongside the one we know so well. Maegarr’s cult is expertly crafted, with a belief so plausible it could be defined as chilling.
<i>Eat the Night</i> is easily one of my favorite reads so far this year and is perfect for those looking for a good Halloween read. I would like to extend a special thanks to NetGalley, DarkFuse, and Tim Waggoner for providing me with an advanced copy for the purpose of an honest, unbiased review.
Thirty years ago, retired rockstar Mark Maegarr and his devout followers, in true Jonestown fashion, committed suicide in tropic Suriname. It was Maegarr’s belief that this ritual would hasten the approach of Entropy, or the total dissolution of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for Maegarr, something went wrong and he spends the next several decades reaching from beyond the grave to finish what he started.
Joan Lantz and her husband, Jon, are first time home-owners. Burdened with a troubled past, Joan is glad to finally have a home of her own. After waking from a horrific nightmare detailing the grisly end that befell Mark Maegarr and his cult, she discovers a hidden basement in her home, which had not been on the house’s plans and was previously unknown to the home’s last owners, who were friends of hers.
Kevin Benecke works for Maintenance, a secretive company that is reminiscent of Men in Black. Aware that they cannot save the world from its fate, their goal is to slow the coming of the end down from the sidelines. He’s an unfortunate sort of fellow and things don’t happen to go the way they ought to in his line of work, but he has his own boyish charm.
Together, these three characters weave a story that is brimming with horrific scenes and action. The plot is fairly solid as well, and Waggoner doesn’t hold back when it comes to the laws of the world he has created to coexist alongside the one we know so well. Maegarr’s cult is expertly crafted, with a belief so plausible it could be defined as chilling.
<i>Eat the Night</i> is easily one of my favorite reads so far this year and is perfect for those looking for a good Halloween read. I would like to extend a special thanks to NetGalley, DarkFuse, and Tim Waggoner for providing me with an advanced copy for the purpose of an honest, unbiased review.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Masquerade in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading this novel by the end of it. The beginning is a bit slow and dry, as Moser sets up the background information and almost struggles to get the reader to "side" with the main character Charlotte Gleason by using her maid's voice to excuse Charlotte's "spoiled rich girl" behavior. I really have a hard time buying the lines that Charlotte really is a good person even though she chooses to be naive about the world she lives in because she feels helpless to enact change. But what happens to her family to force her to travel to America is just the thing to wake her up to the real world and her own responsibilities in it.
I feel much more sympathetic to Dora Conners' plight, as she has little to no say in her life and what Charlotte forces on her, even if it does seem to benefit Dora in theory. To be forced into a position in which she has to lie about who she is and where she is from by her "boss" is atrocious, no matter how much a "friendship" has been built between them. In addition, the endgame is that she is expected to give of her own body to a man in marriage who does not even know who she really is - it's completely shameful.
The parallel way that the story is told once the girls get to America is quite interesting, especially how their paths intersect in seemingly coincidental ways, such as the sweat shop where Charlotte works temporarily manufacturing the clothes that Dora orders from the Tremaine's department store. The more that Charlotte suffers and the guiltier she feels for the lies she has told and has also forced on Dora makes me like her more for the maturation in character she experiences.
In contrast, I have a hard time blaming Dora for the choices she has to make while living in the Tremaine household given her circumstances. She was made to come to this place and perform to certain expectations, and she has no backup plan should she decide to do otherwise. The guilt she feels despite her lack of personal choice in the matter only make her more likeable to the reader. Given where she is from and what is being handed to her, there are not many who would fault her for going along with the "masquerade."
In the end, the goal of both girls is true love over financial stability, and since I am a romantic at heart, I can't help but approve of the ending.
I feel much more sympathetic to Dora Conners' plight, as she has little to no say in her life and what Charlotte forces on her, even if it does seem to benefit Dora in theory. To be forced into a position in which she has to lie about who she is and where she is from by her "boss" is atrocious, no matter how much a "friendship" has been built between them. In addition, the endgame is that she is expected to give of her own body to a man in marriage who does not even know who she really is - it's completely shameful.
The parallel way that the story is told once the girls get to America is quite interesting, especially how their paths intersect in seemingly coincidental ways, such as the sweat shop where Charlotte works temporarily manufacturing the clothes that Dora orders from the Tremaine's department store. The more that Charlotte suffers and the guiltier she feels for the lies she has told and has also forced on Dora makes me like her more for the maturation in character she experiences.
In contrast, I have a hard time blaming Dora for the choices she has to make while living in the Tremaine household given her circumstances. She was made to come to this place and perform to certain expectations, and she has no backup plan should she decide to do otherwise. The guilt she feels despite her lack of personal choice in the matter only make her more likeable to the reader. Given where she is from and what is being handed to her, there are not many who would fault her for going along with the "masquerade."
In the end, the goal of both girls is true love over financial stability, and since I am a romantic at heart, I can't help but approve of the ending.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Retreat (Season 8, Volume 6) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Sorry, this is kinda more ranty then when I started out, and probably not very well-written. You've been warned. Also, no spoilers are revealed in my <s>rant</s> review</b> (though that was hard not to do ;P)<b>.</b>
Why do I keep reading this series? Why do I expect it to get any better? Or even come close to resembling what the show was about in the first place? What in the Sam Hell is wrong with me that I persist in reading this travesty? Ack!
Again, the plot is ludicrous, the characters don't always feel true to form, the witty banter is nearly non-existent, and the illustrations are making the characters indistinguishable from one another, most especially the darker haired girls, such as Faith, Dawn, and Kennedy (Why exactly isn't she gone yet?). The villain, Twilight, isn't very interesting and I wonder how much longer it's going to be before the big reveal. Just get to it already, will ya? Amy and Warren also need to go. Lame is the word that comes to mind when I think of them. Old characters who have long exceeded their welcome, and Amy in particular doesn't add anything anymore; she's run her course, let's move on now. Oz was a mixed bag, I liked some of what happened to him since he left Sunnydale and some...not so much. The interactions between him and Willow were rather weird and didn't seem to fit where they had left off exactly. Willow herself was quite angsty and I don't understand how she got to that place at this time. Perhaps I've forgotten something from a previous entry.
Gone is the show I've known and loved, instead they've decided to pull out all the stops, literally, and we're left with this bizarre mess. I don't know if they made a deal with the devil or what, but everything has been thrown into this story, including the kitchen sink, with no rhyme or reason. Do they know what control is, or careful selection, or do they just not care? I don't expect graphic novels to be as detailed as a TV show, but this whole season has gotten more and more ridiculous as it has went on and I cannot fathom why I'm torturing myself. Oh, I know, it's great entertainment. I want to see how much further they can destroy the memory of a great show. Does this deserve two stars? Probably not, but I can't help myself, apparently. Bah!!
Why do I keep reading this series? Why do I expect it to get any better? Or even come close to resembling what the show was about in the first place? What in the Sam Hell is wrong with me that I persist in reading this travesty? Ack!
Again, the plot is ludicrous, the characters don't always feel true to form, the witty banter is nearly non-existent, and the illustrations are making the characters indistinguishable from one another, most especially the darker haired girls, such as Faith, Dawn, and Kennedy (Why exactly isn't she gone yet?). The villain, Twilight, isn't very interesting and I wonder how much longer it's going to be before the big reveal. Just get to it already, will ya? Amy and Warren also need to go. Lame is the word that comes to mind when I think of them. Old characters who have long exceeded their welcome, and Amy in particular doesn't add anything anymore; she's run her course, let's move on now. Oz was a mixed bag, I liked some of what happened to him since he left Sunnydale and some...not so much. The interactions between him and Willow were rather weird and didn't seem to fit where they had left off exactly. Willow herself was quite angsty and I don't understand how she got to that place at this time. Perhaps I've forgotten something from a previous entry.
Gone is the show I've known and loved, instead they've decided to pull out all the stops, literally, and we're left with this bizarre mess. I don't know if they made a deal with the devil or what, but everything has been thrown into this story, including the kitchen sink, with no rhyme or reason. Do they know what control is, or careful selection, or do they just not care? I don't expect graphic novels to be as detailed as a TV show, but this whole season has gotten more and more ridiculous as it has went on and I cannot fathom why I'm torturing myself. Oh, I know, it's great entertainment. I want to see how much further they can destroy the memory of a great show. Does this deserve two stars? Probably not, but I can't help myself, apparently. Bah!!