Search
Search results
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Die Hard (1988) in Movies
Jan 16, 2021 (Updated Jan 17, 2021)
The casting (3 more)
Plot
SFX
Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in general
Welcome to the party pal!
In 1988 Hollywood Gambled on a lesser known tv star for it's high budget action thriller.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Touching The Void in Books
Jun 24, 2019
At school a little while ago we looked at an extract from this book, and I decided I may as well read the rest of the book too.
If you don't already know, Joe Simpson suffered a serious leg injury while climbing a previously unreached summit in the Peruvian Andes, 1985. His partner, Simon Yates, had a life-changing decision to make that would determine who would live and who would not.
Joe tells his story in excruciating detail, with snippets from his partner's point of view, too. He uses a lot of technical language as would be expected, which can sometimes go straight over the reader's head. He describes his emotions, his physical pain after the injury, and the setting that he found himself in.
Things go well at first, but during the descent there is serious trouble. Joe and Simon work together to lower Joe with his disformed leg, and it works for some time. But eventually, Simon has to decide whether to cut the rope or not.
After his first injury, Joe manages to survive an unbelievably long fall. But now he's stuck in the crevasse, alone, with no hopes of returning to camp alive. Meanwhile, Simon is having to overcome his guilt and travel alone, with several frostbitten fingers and no food or water. The journey that both men must take is truly amazing and although you know the general outcome, you find yourself reading on and on to see what happens next.
Although it seems like a pretty short book, it took me slightly longer than expected to finish it. The technicalities meant nothing to me most of the time, making it slightly hard to visualise the scene in detail. But I was still able to appreciate the difficulties and obstacles that the climbers had to overcome, and I am amazed at how they did it.
The photos included throughout the book were really helpful for scene-setting, and show how stunning the views were over the mountain range.
I don't read biographies that often, so I knew it wouldn't be my favourite book. But it was good, and if you like this sort of thing then I would definitely recommend it. 3.5 stars I think.
If you don't already know, Joe Simpson suffered a serious leg injury while climbing a previously unreached summit in the Peruvian Andes, 1985. His partner, Simon Yates, had a life-changing decision to make that would determine who would live and who would not.
Joe tells his story in excruciating detail, with snippets from his partner's point of view, too. He uses a lot of technical language as would be expected, which can sometimes go straight over the reader's head. He describes his emotions, his physical pain after the injury, and the setting that he found himself in.
Things go well at first, but during the descent there is serious trouble. Joe and Simon work together to lower Joe with his disformed leg, and it works for some time. But eventually, Simon has to decide whether to cut the rope or not.
After his first injury, Joe manages to survive an unbelievably long fall. But now he's stuck in the crevasse, alone, with no hopes of returning to camp alive. Meanwhile, Simon is having to overcome his guilt and travel alone, with several frostbitten fingers and no food or water. The journey that both men must take is truly amazing and although you know the general outcome, you find yourself reading on and on to see what happens next.
Although it seems like a pretty short book, it took me slightly longer than expected to finish it. The technicalities meant nothing to me most of the time, making it slightly hard to visualise the scene in detail. But I was still able to appreciate the difficulties and obstacles that the climbers had to overcome, and I am amazed at how they did it.
The photos included throughout the book were really helpful for scene-setting, and show how stunning the views were over the mountain range.
I don't read biographies that often, so I knew it wouldn't be my favourite book. But it was good, and if you like this sort of thing then I would definitely recommend it. 3.5 stars I think.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Trophy Wife (The Dumont Diaries, #0.5-5) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
MMM, this is a hard one, on the one hand, I very much enjoyed Trophy Wife and on the other, there was some real no no's that totally turn me off when it comes to erotic fiction.
This is the main reason I've marked it down in my ratings.
Now obviously what sinks my ship may float your boat and more, we are all different and you may find my reasons don't bother you at all.
Now there are gonna be some teeny spoilers ahead as It's major unavoidable if I am going to explain why I've marked this down.
My major hard limit
CHEATING!!!!!
and not only cheating, the fact that no one's really bothered and I know this may seem a bit boring, but I like my Lover & Lovee to save the honey for each other, no excuses, no we were on a break and definitely no contact of any kind whatsoever, no exceptions and that means kissing also.
Why you might ask.
BECAUSE THERE MEANT TO BE BLOODY IN LOVE!!!!!!
or getting there at least and I'm a die hard romantic like that.
So yes no bodily contact with others while still being as filthy as downright sin is the flavour I like to see in my reading.
So, of course, this is where Trophy Wife let me down a bit, I maybe could have overlooked this if either Nathan or Candy had got their knickers in a twist diva style or something to that effect, but no let's brush it under the carpet like it never happened, and yes it's still cheating in my book when he takes his ex-girlfriend back and sleeps with her while still being married to Candy.
So the poor boy needed to get his leg over with his ex to decide he's in love with his wife geez!!
What happened did a shag unlock his brain.
And I do know that Candy is not exactly innocent either, They both behaved like a pair of absolute bloody pillocks in my opinion.
The second thing I had an issue with was the car incident. I have nothing against voyeurism at all but when Nathan gets candy to perform a certain service for his business associate and calls her a derogatory name in front of him well this wasn't hot or sexy one iota I was cringing in shame for the poor girl, awful behaviour.
The third and final thing and it may seem a tad silly but it's the name CANDY!!!
I hate it, it sounds like a stereotypical strippers name, which I know Candy is, but couldn't the poor girl have had something more sophisticated than Candy.
Despite my above bugbears, I really did like the rest of this book. It was mucky as hell and hot hot hot.
The story flowed brilliantly and I especially loved seeing the inner thoughts of both Candy & Nathan.
I feel that we needed to see inside Nathan's head as well as if I hadn't I don't know if I could have warmed to him at all.
He was such a dominant man, his vulnerability was so well hidden that it was his musings inside is own head that showed he had a softer side.
Trophy Wife by Alessandra Torre gets a three & half from me a great read with some issues that for me are just personal preferences.
You they might not affect at all.
Trophy Wife is currently free on KU.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
This is the main reason I've marked it down in my ratings.
Now obviously what sinks my ship may float your boat and more, we are all different and you may find my reasons don't bother you at all.
Now there are gonna be some teeny spoilers ahead as It's major unavoidable if I am going to explain why I've marked this down.
My major hard limit
CHEATING!!!!!
and not only cheating, the fact that no one's really bothered and I know this may seem a bit boring, but I like my Lover & Lovee to save the honey for each other, no excuses, no we were on a break and definitely no contact of any kind whatsoever, no exceptions and that means kissing also.
Why you might ask.
BECAUSE THERE MEANT TO BE BLOODY IN LOVE!!!!!!
or getting there at least and I'm a die hard romantic like that.
So yes no bodily contact with others while still being as filthy as downright sin is the flavour I like to see in my reading.
So, of course, this is where Trophy Wife let me down a bit, I maybe could have overlooked this if either Nathan or Candy had got their knickers in a twist diva style or something to that effect, but no let's brush it under the carpet like it never happened, and yes it's still cheating in my book when he takes his ex-girlfriend back and sleeps with her while still being married to Candy.
So the poor boy needed to get his leg over with his ex to decide he's in love with his wife geez!!
What happened did a shag unlock his brain.
And I do know that Candy is not exactly innocent either, They both behaved like a pair of absolute bloody pillocks in my opinion.
The second thing I had an issue with was the car incident. I have nothing against voyeurism at all but when Nathan gets candy to perform a certain service for his business associate and calls her a derogatory name in front of him well this wasn't hot or sexy one iota I was cringing in shame for the poor girl, awful behaviour.
The third and final thing and it may seem a tad silly but it's the name CANDY!!!
I hate it, it sounds like a stereotypical strippers name, which I know Candy is, but couldn't the poor girl have had something more sophisticated than Candy.
Despite my above bugbears, I really did like the rest of this book. It was mucky as hell and hot hot hot.
The story flowed brilliantly and I especially loved seeing the inner thoughts of both Candy & Nathan.
I feel that we needed to see inside Nathan's head as well as if I hadn't I don't know if I could have warmed to him at all.
He was such a dominant man, his vulnerability was so well hidden that it was his musings inside is own head that showed he had a softer side.
Trophy Wife by Alessandra Torre gets a three & half from me a great read with some issues that for me are just personal preferences.
You they might not affect at all.
Trophy Wife is currently free on KU.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lady Vanishes (1938) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
A Film That Never Quite Steadies Itself
When a woman disappears after a train ride, iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood), who was on the same train, is trying to prove that the woman was even there to begin with and get to the bottom of what’s going on. I always root for the classics (50’s or earlier) because of my immense respect for film and also wanting to recommend some hidden gems. Unfortunately this one fell a bit short for me and here’s why…
Acting: 10
I thought the performances were quite on par for the course. Lockwood delivers her lines with a sincerity and truth that almost manages to keep me engaged. I wish her character was more interesting, but that’s not her fault. She had a job and she did that job in stellar fashion along with some of the other main actors/actresses that came along for this ride.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
These characters were about as interesting as canned chicken noodle soup, not the kind you get from PF Chang’s. No, these are Great Value characters all day and they bored me to tears. I wanted someone, ANYONE, to make me care and I just couldn’t bring myself to latch on to any of them. You know what I always say and it bears repeating: When you have weak characters, you’re not even giving your story a fighting chance. Good characters are like the tires on a fine car. The car means nothing if it doesn’t have a means in which to be transported.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 6
I never really felt like much was happening. There are flashes, sure, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on the stakes for some reason. I waited, believe me I did, but I left the viewing wanting much more than what I got.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 10
I know this is going to seem ass-backwards from everything I’ve written up to this point, but I scored this category so high because of the attempt at an original story. No, it wasn’t perfect. Yes, the execution could have been much better. However, I do feel like this is a film that needs to be respected within its time.
Pace: 5
Things never really steadied for me as I found myself continuously looking at the clock. While it picks up slightly towards its conclusion, it never really gains the steam that I was looking for. For me, there was just too much of too much, meaning it kept veering off into different directions before properly getting to the end of one road.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
As I mentioned, things definitely pick up steam at the end until you get to a thrilling conclusion. When it was all said and done, I found myself asking, “Why the hell couldn’t the rest of the movie be like this?” It was almost like there was a different director for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Definitely ties a nice bow on things.
Overall: 68
As of this review, The Lady Vanishes has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 88% Audience Score. I plan to watch this movie again because it missed me the first time. Maybe the second time around I’ll pick up on the magic I seem to be missing.
Acting: 10
I thought the performances were quite on par for the course. Lockwood delivers her lines with a sincerity and truth that almost manages to keep me engaged. I wish her character was more interesting, but that’s not her fault. She had a job and she did that job in stellar fashion along with some of the other main actors/actresses that came along for this ride.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
These characters were about as interesting as canned chicken noodle soup, not the kind you get from PF Chang’s. No, these are Great Value characters all day and they bored me to tears. I wanted someone, ANYONE, to make me care and I just couldn’t bring myself to latch on to any of them. You know what I always say and it bears repeating: When you have weak characters, you’re not even giving your story a fighting chance. Good characters are like the tires on a fine car. The car means nothing if it doesn’t have a means in which to be transported.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 6
I never really felt like much was happening. There are flashes, sure, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on the stakes for some reason. I waited, believe me I did, but I left the viewing wanting much more than what I got.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 10
I know this is going to seem ass-backwards from everything I’ve written up to this point, but I scored this category so high because of the attempt at an original story. No, it wasn’t perfect. Yes, the execution could have been much better. However, I do feel like this is a film that needs to be respected within its time.
Pace: 5
Things never really steadied for me as I found myself continuously looking at the clock. While it picks up slightly towards its conclusion, it never really gains the steam that I was looking for. For me, there was just too much of too much, meaning it kept veering off into different directions before properly getting to the end of one road.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
As I mentioned, things definitely pick up steam at the end until you get to a thrilling conclusion. When it was all said and done, I found myself asking, “Why the hell couldn’t the rest of the movie be like this?” It was almost like there was a different director for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Definitely ties a nice bow on things.
Overall: 68
As of this review, The Lady Vanishes has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 88% Audience Score. I plan to watch this movie again because it missed me the first time. Maybe the second time around I’ll pick up on the magic I seem to be missing.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Why Me? Why Not. by Liam Gallagher
7.5
Rate It
Album Watch
Good things come to those who wait: and so, this summer, Liam Gallagher returns with a new single, a...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Sensationalist yet frighteningly alluring
You're a moth to a flame reading this rather alarmingly captivating book by journalist Michael Wolff. At times you question which are facts and which are fiction thanks to a bombardment of fake news by the Trump administration. And while Fire and Fury does sound satirical due to the surreal nature of the entire book, much of it can be sadly backed up by what we have seen.
Wolff seeks to fill in the gaps between the various tweets and public appearances made by the U.S. president during the last 13 months, the rash decisions and the thinking behind the bizarre rants. But more than anything, this book seems to explain the Trump brand, and everyone who has become a prime role in marketing it, especially Trump's ex-right hand man Steve Bannon and his family Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner. Their position is explained to be the 'puppet masters', in which unlike any other U.S. government - policies are dictated and "trickled upwards".
In this, Trump is described as 'post-literate', unable to read or concentrate on anything that doesn't interest him, petulant like a child, and disturbingly vacuous. This is less shocking than expected. However, the claims made in the book range from covert connections with the Russians ahead of the elections in great detail, to 'allowing' former head of the FBI, James Comey, to stay in power so that would did not investigate internal affairs - allegedly confirmed by Bannon.
Other less explosive statements include Trump's inner circle reportedly saying how ridiculously stupid he is, which he has recently refuted by saying he is a "stable genius". Overall, an incredibly readable book mostly corroborating what liberals and non-Trump supporters believe.
Wolff seeks to fill in the gaps between the various tweets and public appearances made by the U.S. president during the last 13 months, the rash decisions and the thinking behind the bizarre rants. But more than anything, this book seems to explain the Trump brand, and everyone who has become a prime role in marketing it, especially Trump's ex-right hand man Steve Bannon and his family Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner. Their position is explained to be the 'puppet masters', in which unlike any other U.S. government - policies are dictated and "trickled upwards".
In this, Trump is described as 'post-literate', unable to read or concentrate on anything that doesn't interest him, petulant like a child, and disturbingly vacuous. This is less shocking than expected. However, the claims made in the book range from covert connections with the Russians ahead of the elections in great detail, to 'allowing' former head of the FBI, James Comey, to stay in power so that would did not investigate internal affairs - allegedly confirmed by Bannon.
Other less explosive statements include Trump's inner circle reportedly saying how ridiculously stupid he is, which he has recently refuted by saying he is a "stable genius". Overall, an incredibly readable book mostly corroborating what liberals and non-Trump supporters believe.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sons of Thunder (Brothers in Arms Collection) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved the concept of Sons of Thunder. It had great potential and I’ve seen tons of five-star reviews for it. Sadly it didn’t meet my expectations.
I had a hard time reading it for a few reasons. One was the writing. It had a sort of funny style. It was as if short dramatic phrases were placed at the end of a paragraph, but the phrases were not dramatic in any way, nor were the necessary. It made the whole thing feel awkward. It was also hard to follow and I got confused a lot.
The second was the romance. I immediately saw and understood how Markos looked at Sofia. But their relationship jumped around from courteous to in-love to friends to not-talking, and I couldn’t understand where they actually stood or how they saw each other. It was like a whole first chunk of their relationship was missing from the book. There was no connection to the characters.
Third, I didn’t like the Chicago club stuff at all. It turned me off right away.
As I mentioned above I didn’t finish Sons of Thunder. There was nothing compelling me to continue, there wasn’t any plot, and the characters were beginning to aggravate me and I didn’t connect with them. I skipped to the very last page just to see what happened, and was not surprised to see that exactly what I thought would happen, did happen.
I was very disappointed by Sons of Thunder, especially considering all the five star reviews on Goodreads and Amazon. I really wish I had loved it, but I must share my 100% honest opinion. Please know that I and the few other readers who didn’t like it are the minority by a landslide. I hope you’ll consider other reviews before you make a decision.
I had a hard time reading it for a few reasons. One was the writing. It had a sort of funny style. It was as if short dramatic phrases were placed at the end of a paragraph, but the phrases were not dramatic in any way, nor were the necessary. It made the whole thing feel awkward. It was also hard to follow and I got confused a lot.
The second was the romance. I immediately saw and understood how Markos looked at Sofia. But their relationship jumped around from courteous to in-love to friends to not-talking, and I couldn’t understand where they actually stood or how they saw each other. It was like a whole first chunk of their relationship was missing from the book. There was no connection to the characters.
Third, I didn’t like the Chicago club stuff at all. It turned me off right away.
As I mentioned above I didn’t finish Sons of Thunder. There was nothing compelling me to continue, there wasn’t any plot, and the characters were beginning to aggravate me and I didn’t connect with them. I skipped to the very last page just to see what happened, and was not surprised to see that exactly what I thought would happen, did happen.
I was very disappointed by Sons of Thunder, especially considering all the five star reviews on Goodreads and Amazon. I really wish I had loved it, but I must share my 100% honest opinion. Please know that I and the few other readers who didn’t like it are the minority by a landslide. I hope you’ll consider other reviews before you make a decision.