Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nine in Books
Sep 13, 2020
I've been a fan of Rachelle Dekker ever since I read The Girl Behind the Red Rope. When I saw that Rachelle Dekker had released a new book entitled Nine, I knew it was a book that I needed to read. I was so glad I picked this book up!
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated VFW (2019) in Movies
Jun 8, 2020
VFW had been an off the cuff pick for ones to watch, at the last minute it appeared in some listings and I was intrigued by the cast and the vibe I was getting from the poster.
When a young girl's plan for revenge goes awry she leads a drug fueled army to the doorstep of the local veterans club. The group must defend their home away from home and try to survive until the morning.
The opening scene paints a picture of a slightly dystopian present/future where drugs run rife and cities are shells of their former selves. There are addicts and revellers all in different states and they're either in lively party spirits or high and out of it. Right from the off I found the set up confusing because you're watching something that is difficult to assess, the darkness makes it almost impossible to gauge the surrounding and you're thrown for a loop when they cut to the bright afternoon scene that is pinpointed by captions to just three hours later.
VFW definitely has a heavy 80s vibe to it. The titles, the background hum of music and the style of the filming. The colours are great but it is incredibly difficult to see anything unless you're watching it in anything but darkness. On my first watch I found myself squinting and peering at the screen trying to decipher what was going on.
There's no logical consistency to things that happen even if you take into consideration that half the characters are supposed to be drugged up to the eyeballs. The event that starts off the whole caper gives you a fairly clear idea of how the addicts react to things, if that is translated to the rest of the hoard then there's no way this film is making it past 30 minutes. It would have been done and dusted.
Dialogue throughout isn't very inspiring, there's are some truly dubious moments and the rest is easily forgotten. The scenes themselves aren't believable, the main cast get lots of opportunities to have moments together inside the VFW club despite having moments before been under the threat of a siege. There was one point where I genuinely wondered if the baddies approached and went "No. It's rude to interrupt someone when they're talking."
What it's missing in those areas it makes up for in random violence. (Make sure to watch out for the plastic machete.) There's a vaguely amusing tooling up sequence and I kind of hope they got the cast drunk and let them improvise weapons all on their own for it. This is another thing that smacks of the 80s, a lot of that violence feels like it's been lifted out of retro horror movies and adapted to this film.
I haven't spoken about the cast, and it's something that left me a little frustrated. The names and faces on the list are epic, they're solid actors with a lot of good credits under their belts... but even though they get a couple of good points in the film it's not really what I'd want for them.
VFW has a lot of elements that could work but with the slightly b-moviesque action scenes and clear omissions for the sake of having a "moment" I think it misses the opportunity to be something more serious. It's not right for b-movie/spoof status and because it doesn't take itself seriously enough it's left in a no man's land and I just couldn't figure out what it was trying to do, especially as even they didn't seem to know if they were attempting to make zombie or an action film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/vfw-movie-review.html
When a young girl's plan for revenge goes awry she leads a drug fueled army to the doorstep of the local veterans club. The group must defend their home away from home and try to survive until the morning.
The opening scene paints a picture of a slightly dystopian present/future where drugs run rife and cities are shells of their former selves. There are addicts and revellers all in different states and they're either in lively party spirits or high and out of it. Right from the off I found the set up confusing because you're watching something that is difficult to assess, the darkness makes it almost impossible to gauge the surrounding and you're thrown for a loop when they cut to the bright afternoon scene that is pinpointed by captions to just three hours later.
VFW definitely has a heavy 80s vibe to it. The titles, the background hum of music and the style of the filming. The colours are great but it is incredibly difficult to see anything unless you're watching it in anything but darkness. On my first watch I found myself squinting and peering at the screen trying to decipher what was going on.
There's no logical consistency to things that happen even if you take into consideration that half the characters are supposed to be drugged up to the eyeballs. The event that starts off the whole caper gives you a fairly clear idea of how the addicts react to things, if that is translated to the rest of the hoard then there's no way this film is making it past 30 minutes. It would have been done and dusted.
Dialogue throughout isn't very inspiring, there's are some truly dubious moments and the rest is easily forgotten. The scenes themselves aren't believable, the main cast get lots of opportunities to have moments together inside the VFW club despite having moments before been under the threat of a siege. There was one point where I genuinely wondered if the baddies approached and went "No. It's rude to interrupt someone when they're talking."
What it's missing in those areas it makes up for in random violence. (Make sure to watch out for the plastic machete.) There's a vaguely amusing tooling up sequence and I kind of hope they got the cast drunk and let them improvise weapons all on their own for it. This is another thing that smacks of the 80s, a lot of that violence feels like it's been lifted out of retro horror movies and adapted to this film.
I haven't spoken about the cast, and it's something that left me a little frustrated. The names and faces on the list are epic, they're solid actors with a lot of good credits under their belts... but even though they get a couple of good points in the film it's not really what I'd want for them.
VFW has a lot of elements that could work but with the slightly b-moviesque action scenes and clear omissions for the sake of having a "moment" I think it misses the opportunity to be something more serious. It's not right for b-movie/spoof status and because it doesn't take itself seriously enough it's left in a no man's land and I just couldn't figure out what it was trying to do, especially as even they didn't seem to know if they were attempting to make zombie or an action film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/vfw-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Golden Couple in Books
Aug 25, 2021
I've read every book that Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen have wrote together, so when I got the chance to read their latest book entitled The Golden Couple, I jumped at the chance! I've loved every novel they've written together, and I definitely loved The Golden Couple.
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
âThereâs an air of quiet death in this houseâ.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (âLincolnâ) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950âs fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, âMaleficentâ).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, âThe Colonyâ). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and â aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words â limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manvilleâs award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles Iâve seen this year so far.
Itâs a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for âDarkest Hourâ, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because âhe always gets oneâ. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips â not an actress I know â also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasnât such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radioheadâs Jonny Greenwood. Itâs really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with âThe Shape of Waterâ).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (âInherent Viceâ, âThere Will Be Bloodâ). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the âfashion industryâ (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of âdutyâ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say âThere is strong language (âf**kâ), as well as milder terms including âbloodyâ and âhellâ. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a womanâs nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.â For a 12A, the board say âThe use of strong language (for example, âf***â) must be infrequentâ. I didnât count the f-words⌠but as I said I donât think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that âfrequentâ? And â SHOCK, HORROR⌠visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within âBlack Pantherâ, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950âs fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, âMaleficentâ).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, âThe Colonyâ). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and â aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words â limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manvilleâs award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles Iâve seen this year so far.
Itâs a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for âDarkest Hourâ, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because âhe always gets oneâ. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips â not an actress I know â also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasnât such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radioheadâs Jonny Greenwood. Itâs really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with âThe Shape of Waterâ).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (âInherent Viceâ, âThere Will Be Bloodâ). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the âfashion industryâ (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of âdutyâ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say âThere is strong language (âf**kâ), as well as milder terms including âbloodyâ and âhellâ. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a womanâs nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.â For a 12A, the board say âThe use of strong language (for example, âf***â) must be infrequentâ. I didnât count the f-words⌠but as I said I donât think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that âfrequentâ? And â SHOCK, HORROR⌠visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within âBlack Pantherâ, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You wonât uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this filmâŚ
âThe Girl on a Trainâ is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New Yorkâs Hastings-on-Hudson.
Itâs actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (âSicarioâ, âEdge of Tomorrowâ) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, âZoolander 2â) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca âMI:5â Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, âThe Hobbitâ). A sixth party in this complex network is Meganâs psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Ădgar RamĂrez, âJoyâ).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When âshit gets realâ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from âThe West Wingâ) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Bluntâs performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with âThe Magnificent Sevenâ also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna â âthere were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowdedâ
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy âman in the suitâ and âFriendsâ star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So itâs a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachelâs lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (âThe Helpâ) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last yearâs âGone Girlâ: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
Itâs by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But itâs not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Itâs actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (âSicarioâ, âEdge of Tomorrowâ) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, âZoolander 2â) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca âMI:5â Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, âThe Hobbitâ). A sixth party in this complex network is Meganâs psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Ădgar RamĂrez, âJoyâ).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When âshit gets realâ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from âThe West Wingâ) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Bluntâs performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with âThe Magnificent Sevenâ also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna â âthere were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowdedâ
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy âman in the suitâ and âFriendsâ star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So itâs a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachelâs lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (âThe Helpâ) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last yearâs âGone Girlâ: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
Itâs by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But itâs not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
We left off at the end of John Wick 2 with our lead's imminent excommunication. He's been given an hours grace, in a city that's filled with assassins his odds don't look good, but even for John Wick... bad odds are still pretty good.
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... đ˘
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... đ˘
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, âThe Shape of Waterâ arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewishamâs own Sally Hawkins (âPaddingtonâ, âGodzillaâ) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, âHidden Figuresâ) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, âMidnight Specialâ, âNocturnal Animalsâ) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (âMiss Sloaneâ, âSteve Jobsâ) in a performance that wasnât recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the filmâs story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kidâs film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it âhands-over-the-eyesâ worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannonâs character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after âNocturnal Animalsâ, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
Itâs worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisaâs plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character â also the filmâs narrator â who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. âSometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my lifeâ he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and itâs a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a âno brainerâ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. Itâs a little tricky since I havenât seen âI Tonyaâ or âLadybirdâ yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for â3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouriâ, but the Oscar voters are bound to love âThe Shape of Waterâ. For like âLa La Landâ last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywoodâs golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here âvoiceâ through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldnât want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket sheâs standing on, but itâs Stricklandâs butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (âPacific Rimâ, âCrimson Peakâ) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, âDivergentâ) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisaâs story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the âoriginal screenplayâ is nothing if not âoriginalââŚ. itâs witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex wonât be for everyone⌠but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate⌠hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewishamâs own Sally Hawkins (âPaddingtonâ, âGodzillaâ) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, âHidden Figuresâ) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, âMidnight Specialâ, âNocturnal Animalsâ) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (âMiss Sloaneâ, âSteve Jobsâ) in a performance that wasnât recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the filmâs story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kidâs film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it âhands-over-the-eyesâ worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannonâs character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after âNocturnal Animalsâ, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
Itâs worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisaâs plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character â also the filmâs narrator â who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. âSometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my lifeâ he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and itâs a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a âno brainerâ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. Itâs a little tricky since I havenât seen âI Tonyaâ or âLadybirdâ yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for â3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouriâ, but the Oscar voters are bound to love âThe Shape of Waterâ. For like âLa La Landâ last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywoodâs golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here âvoiceâ through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldnât want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket sheâs standing on, but itâs Stricklandâs butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (âPacific Rimâ, âCrimson Peakâ) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, âDivergentâ) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisaâs story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the âoriginal screenplayâ is nothing if not âoriginalââŚ. itâs witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex wonât be for everyone⌠but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate⌠hopefully in a dry cinema!
Anthony Case (3 KP) rated American Horror Story in TV
Sep 9, 2017
Acting (2 more)
Directing (usually)
Fun Storylines
Each season of American Horror Story is a fresh slate. While some actors (Evan Peters and Sarah Paulson in particular) play similar characters each time, they all play the parts well, and the unique storylines are enough to keep things fresh. Sarah Paulson, Dennis O'Hare, Lily Rabe, and Jessica Lange are standouts every time they show up, but the recurring cast members are all fantastic.
Each season is a new story and Ryan Murphy loves to experiment with how he tells them. Season one, "Muder House," is a fairly standard psycho-sexual horror show. It was clearly building a base, so it skews a little into the "edge-lord teenager" demographic, which really is my inky complaint. Season two, "Asylum," is very experimental. They were trying to figure out what exactly they could get away with, and it turns out they could get away with a lot (though the aliens subplot was a bit too much). It's a very bleak season, with existential dread haunting the entirety of the season. Season three, "Coven," goes the complete opposite direction. It gets pretty campy, though the violence never is toned down. Season four, "Freak Show," is more stylized than previous seasons, and focuses far less on the ensemble. Instead, it is an intense character study of a homicidal rich white dude, which, admittedly, isn't for everyone. Season five, "Hotel," eschews storylines, instead focusing on establishing a crisp visual style (to varying success). Season six, "Roanoke," tackles two very popular subgenres, documentaries and found footage. It has an inspired twist halfway through the season.
There are definantely weak seasons, (Hotel was a mess, and I never really loved Coven's tone) but that's to be expected from an anthology show. The genius of seasons like Asylum and Roanoke should keep you coming back.
To close it out, I'll do a quick ranking for each season, from worst to best: Hotel, Coven, Murder House, Freak Show, Roanoke, Asylum. Hopefully Cult lives up to the high reputation the show has earned!
Each season is a new story and Ryan Murphy loves to experiment with how he tells them. Season one, "Muder House," is a fairly standard psycho-sexual horror show. It was clearly building a base, so it skews a little into the "edge-lord teenager" demographic, which really is my inky complaint. Season two, "Asylum," is very experimental. They were trying to figure out what exactly they could get away with, and it turns out they could get away with a lot (though the aliens subplot was a bit too much). It's a very bleak season, with existential dread haunting the entirety of the season. Season three, "Coven," goes the complete opposite direction. It gets pretty campy, though the violence never is toned down. Season four, "Freak Show," is more stylized than previous seasons, and focuses far less on the ensemble. Instead, it is an intense character study of a homicidal rich white dude, which, admittedly, isn't for everyone. Season five, "Hotel," eschews storylines, instead focusing on establishing a crisp visual style (to varying success). Season six, "Roanoke," tackles two very popular subgenres, documentaries and found footage. It has an inspired twist halfway through the season.
There are definantely weak seasons, (Hotel was a mess, and I never really loved Coven's tone) but that's to be expected from an anthology show. The genius of seasons like Asylum and Roanoke should keep you coming back.
To close it out, I'll do a quick ranking for each season, from worst to best: Hotel, Coven, Murder House, Freak Show, Roanoke, Asylum. Hopefully Cult lives up to the high reputation the show has earned!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Stolen Ones (Jessica Balzano & Kevin Byrne, #7) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
A cold case comes to live with the discovery of a new body, a new murder, and multiple new connections. A two-year-old child is found standing in the middle of the street. A mysterious man in ragged clothing appears in a little girls closet completely out of nowhere. A woman disappears from her basement without having left her house. With the help of the rest of the experts in the Philadelphia Police Department, Detectives Jessica Balzano and Kevin Byrne unravel a chilling series of dream-like murders.
The Stolen Ones is book 7 of a series of detective novels. At the time of request, I was unaware of this fact, and I hoped that I would not be confused because I hadnât read the others. Iâm happy to say that I had no trouble at all getting lost in this story. I am totally in love with Kevin Byrne and his snarky Irish attitude, and Jessicaâs tough-girl-who-is-here-to-kick-ass mentality.
The story was incredibly complex, and a few times I found myself stopping and saying âwait, what? Iâm confused.â I had to check to make sure I hadnât skipped a track in the audiobook. I hadnât, all was well⌠there were just some jarring sections that I think were hard to interpret because it was audio instead of printed. however all things considered it wasnât enough to negatively affect the story.
The performance by William Hope was very good. I liked his voices and interpretations of the characters a lot, especially Kevin Byrne. He has done quite a few audiobooks, and his experience is obvious; he reads with a good authority, pace, and energy.
There were some gruesome details of violence so it is not for the faint of heart or stomach. It was enough to shock me, but it wasnât anything I would regret listening to. Iâd definitely recommend it to ages 18+ who are into the crime thriller genre.
The Stolen Ones is book 7 of a series of detective novels. At the time of request, I was unaware of this fact, and I hoped that I would not be confused because I hadnât read the others. Iâm happy to say that I had no trouble at all getting lost in this story. I am totally in love with Kevin Byrne and his snarky Irish attitude, and Jessicaâs tough-girl-who-is-here-to-kick-ass mentality.
The story was incredibly complex, and a few times I found myself stopping and saying âwait, what? Iâm confused.â I had to check to make sure I hadnât skipped a track in the audiobook. I hadnât, all was well⌠there were just some jarring sections that I think were hard to interpret because it was audio instead of printed. however all things considered it wasnât enough to negatively affect the story.
The performance by William Hope was very good. I liked his voices and interpretations of the characters a lot, especially Kevin Byrne. He has done quite a few audiobooks, and his experience is obvious; he reads with a good authority, pace, and energy.
There were some gruesome details of violence so it is not for the faint of heart or stomach. It was enough to shock me, but it wasnât anything I would regret listening to. Iâd definitely recommend it to ages 18+ who are into the crime thriller genre.