Search
Erika Kehlet (21 KP) rated The Queen of the Tearling in Books
Feb 19, 2018
I finished this audiobook a while ago and put off writing the review because I couldn't decide how I felt about it. I went back and forth between 2 and 3 stars for a while. There were several things about the story that really bothered me (making me feel like it only deserved 2 stars), but then there were times when I was interested enough to think that I would need to read book two to see what happens. When all was said and done, I did decide I might read the next book at some point, so three stars it is.
A note about setting
The book sounds like any other fantasy novel. This story actually takes place in a future where for some reason (we are never told exactly what happened), a group of people have fled America and moved to a new land (again, we don't know how there was a new land available for them to colonize...) leaving all technology and modern conveniences behind them.
What bothered me about the book
Is it young adult or not? Occasionally the language, violence, or other crudeness seemed inappropriate for all but the most mature of teens, but then Kelsea would act like a nineteen year old girl, she spent an awful lot of time obsessing over her plain appearance, how handsome each of her guards happened to be, etc..., so I could never really tell.
Where / when is it? We get bits and pieces mentioning "the crossing", but why? What happened? Is there still an America with technology somewhere? Where are the main characters now? If the Capital is New London, are they anywhere near old London? How is there magic? And who is this enemy, this evil Mort/Red Queen who seems to have an abundance of it? I can go on and on here, and the lack of details or explanation about this world they are living in is my biggest complaint.
What I liked about the book
Kelsea, when she could remember not to worry about her plain face or how greasy her hair looked, actually had a decent moral compass and wanted to do what was right for her new-found kingdom, not just what was easy or convenient for her. She was stubborn and idealistic, and I admired those traits in her. I even eventually grew to like some of her guards, the Mace and Pen in particular, as they finally learned to respect her and some of her ideas near the end of the story.
Will you like this book?
I wish I could say yes, but the best I can do is maybe. If you go into it knowing that you are not going to understand exactly where this world is, how it came about, or why, and that doesn't bother you, then you just might. I will give book two a try to see if there are more details forthcoming, but not right away.
A note about setting
The book sounds like any other fantasy novel. This story actually takes place in a future where for some reason (we are never told exactly what happened), a group of people have fled America and moved to a new land (again, we don't know how there was a new land available for them to colonize...) leaving all technology and modern conveniences behind them.
What bothered me about the book
Is it young adult or not? Occasionally the language, violence, or other crudeness seemed inappropriate for all but the most mature of teens, but then Kelsea would act like a nineteen year old girl, she spent an awful lot of time obsessing over her plain appearance, how handsome each of her guards happened to be, etc..., so I could never really tell.
Where / when is it? We get bits and pieces mentioning "the crossing", but why? What happened? Is there still an America with technology somewhere? Where are the main characters now? If the Capital is New London, are they anywhere near old London? How is there magic? And who is this enemy, this evil Mort/Red Queen who seems to have an abundance of it? I can go on and on here, and the lack of details or explanation about this world they are living in is my biggest complaint.
What I liked about the book
Kelsea, when she could remember not to worry about her plain face or how greasy her hair looked, actually had a decent moral compass and wanted to do what was right for her new-found kingdom, not just what was easy or convenient for her. She was stubborn and idealistic, and I admired those traits in her. I even eventually grew to like some of her guards, the Mace and Pen in particular, as they finally learned to respect her and some of her ideas near the end of the story.
Will you like this book?
I wish I could say yes, but the best I can do is maybe. If you go into it knowing that you are not going to understand exactly where this world is, how it came about, or why, and that doesn't bother you, then you just might. I will give book two a try to see if there are more details forthcoming, but not right away.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Mercy Snow: A Novel in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/mercy-snow-by-tiffany-baker
<b><i>The real trick to holding two things together, June was coming to see, wasnt how rightly they were bound but how well. Sometimes a loose thread was a saving grace.</b></i>
This is more a review on the characters than the overall novel because the plot took a back step to the characters stories.
Beautiful writing style! Its so elegant and well formed. Easy to read yet full of vivid imagery and scenery. Every character, no matter how small, was really well formed and interesting to read about. Unfortunately, there were some really dislikable characters in this novel.
I thought I liked June, I thought she was a brave outsider doing her best to assimilate but it just turns out shes selfish! You would have thought that a woman who knows what it feels like to be on the outside of everyone else would sympathise with the likes of Mercy and her family, but instead she does whatever she can to get rid of them, all for her own selfish needs and even after she knows how heart broken her son is. I thought maybe it had something to do with Cal, as it was obvious he was angry and controlling at times, but I still couldnt sympathise with her because, in the end, she could have just left the Snows alone, rather than torment and threaten them. <spoiler>She was also everything I hate a woman can be when her partner cheats on her - forgiving and accepting. No. <b>No.</b> Never, ever, ever, ever, ever accept infidelity.</spoiler>
Mercy, of course, was supposed to be every readers hero. She was the kind of person you wish you could be. She was gentle and kind, she was obedient and caring, and most of all, she was selfless. She held no grudges against anyone, even those who were plotting against her, all she wanted to do was help people prove her brother's innocence, and that her family werent the neer-do-wells everyone believed them to be.
Although Mercy was lovely, Hazel was by far my favourite character because she was <i>so genuine.</i> She wasnt perfect, she had her doubts and silly thoughts, <b><i>Hazel supposed she ought to thank her, but instead she felt a hot flush across her chest. They were </i>her<i> sheep, and Fergus was </i>her<i> man,</b></i> but she tried her best to do what was right and that made her a really likable person.
Nate really grew as a character throughout the novel. To begin with, he remained a bit of a nothingy addition to the story, but he gradually became one of the nicest characters to read about. He was so warm and kind, he didnt take after his father at all, which is clearly a good thing! He was a total cutie as well, the part with the lamb birthing almost had my heart melting! (although it was also a little too TMI when it talked about his hand in her really warm uterus . *shudder*)
Cal doesnt even get a paragraph because of what a twat he was.
This was a lovely book, full of morals and thought-provoking subjects. What started out as a bit of a boring and weird read for me, turned into something really wonderful. Im glad I picked this up.
<b><i>The real trick to holding two things together, June was coming to see, wasnt how rightly they were bound but how well. Sometimes a loose thread was a saving grace.</b></i>
This is more a review on the characters than the overall novel because the plot took a back step to the characters stories.
Beautiful writing style! Its so elegant and well formed. Easy to read yet full of vivid imagery and scenery. Every character, no matter how small, was really well formed and interesting to read about. Unfortunately, there were some really dislikable characters in this novel.
I thought I liked June, I thought she was a brave outsider doing her best to assimilate but it just turns out shes selfish! You would have thought that a woman who knows what it feels like to be on the outside of everyone else would sympathise with the likes of Mercy and her family, but instead she does whatever she can to get rid of them, all for her own selfish needs and even after she knows how heart broken her son is. I thought maybe it had something to do with Cal, as it was obvious he was angry and controlling at times, but I still couldnt sympathise with her because, in the end, she could have just left the Snows alone, rather than torment and threaten them. <spoiler>She was also everything I hate a woman can be when her partner cheats on her - forgiving and accepting. No. <b>No.</b> Never, ever, ever, ever, ever accept infidelity.</spoiler>
Mercy, of course, was supposed to be every readers hero. She was the kind of person you wish you could be. She was gentle and kind, she was obedient and caring, and most of all, she was selfless. She held no grudges against anyone, even those who were plotting against her, all she wanted to do was help people prove her brother's innocence, and that her family werent the neer-do-wells everyone believed them to be.
Although Mercy was lovely, Hazel was by far my favourite character because she was <i>so genuine.</i> She wasnt perfect, she had her doubts and silly thoughts, <b><i>Hazel supposed she ought to thank her, but instead she felt a hot flush across her chest. They were </i>her<i> sheep, and Fergus was </i>her<i> man,</b></i> but she tried her best to do what was right and that made her a really likable person.
Nate really grew as a character throughout the novel. To begin with, he remained a bit of a nothingy addition to the story, but he gradually became one of the nicest characters to read about. He was so warm and kind, he didnt take after his father at all, which is clearly a good thing! He was a total cutie as well, the part with the lamb birthing almost had my heart melting! (although it was also a little too TMI when it talked about his hand in her really warm uterus . *shudder*)
Cal doesnt even get a paragraph because of what a twat he was.
This was a lovely book, full of morals and thought-provoking subjects. What started out as a bit of a boring and weird read for me, turned into something really wonderful. Im glad I picked this up.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
If you hear the sound of a million screaming girls coming from your local theater, then you already know that the newest film in the Twilight Saga, “New Moon” is here. Picking up where “Twilight” left off is the love triangle between emo babe, Bella (Kristen Stewert), her star-crossed boyfriend/vampire, Edward (Robert Pattinson), and the heartfelt affectionate werewolf, Jacob (Taylor Lautner). But this film isn’t just about this century’s most discussed love triangle. “New Moon” takes Twilighters deeper into the history and mythos of these loveable monsters. Further expanding the Twilightverse is the introduction of the Volturi, the vampire royalty, who keep their kind a global secret, with serious consequences for those who break their code.
If you were bored during the slow buildup of “Twilight” then “New Moon” should be an exciting change, filled with fast cars and strong CGI. And the visuals don’t stop there, with backdrops ranging from the rainy forests of Washington to the sunny streets of Tuscany, this film goes far beyond the scope of the last.
Most impressively the acting has improved, especially on the part of Jacob Black who is charming in “New Moon”, a significant improvement from his irritating portrayal in the first film. Did I mention that he has gained a six pack? No, not just the abs, but also in the form of his wolf tribe (yes, I know there are only five wolves, but who can resist a good six pack turn of phrase?).
I only wish there had been more interaction with the Volturi. Surely there was a way to skip an unnecessary emotional Bella scene for a better understanding of the cruel nature of these creatures. Still the chemistry between Bella and the two men of her dreams is undeniably heart wrenching in this cinematic chapter.
Lovers of Twilight will also rejoice over the clever dialogue, which immediately took me back to key moments in the books. Moreover, the action-filled storytelling might just be the final straw for the remaining people out there on the fence about tackling the hefty novels.
If you were bored during the slow buildup of “Twilight” then “New Moon” should be an exciting change, filled with fast cars and strong CGI. And the visuals don’t stop there, with backdrops ranging from the rainy forests of Washington to the sunny streets of Tuscany, this film goes far beyond the scope of the last.
Most impressively the acting has improved, especially on the part of Jacob Black who is charming in “New Moon”, a significant improvement from his irritating portrayal in the first film. Did I mention that he has gained a six pack? No, not just the abs, but also in the form of his wolf tribe (yes, I know there are only five wolves, but who can resist a good six pack turn of phrase?).
I only wish there had been more interaction with the Volturi. Surely there was a way to skip an unnecessary emotional Bella scene for a better understanding of the cruel nature of these creatures. Still the chemistry between Bella and the two men of her dreams is undeniably heart wrenching in this cinematic chapter.
Lovers of Twilight will also rejoice over the clever dialogue, which immediately took me back to key moments in the books. Moreover, the action-filled storytelling might just be the final straw for the remaining people out there on the fence about tackling the hefty novels.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ben Is Back (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
We seem to be knee deep in movies like this at the moment, Ben Is Back being the second from Lucas Hedges. This one is penned and directed by his father, Peter Hedges, though it doesn't appear that he was a shoo-in for the role.
After seeing Boy Erased I wasn't overly sure about Hedges as an actor, if I'm honest this has done little to sway that opinion in me. I don't feel like we get a massive range from him, possibly because these movies all feel like they've been made to win things over everything else? I'm not sure.
Hedges performance is brought up a level by the incredible performance from Julia Roberts, that woman truly is a treasure. The desperate nature of her character is so evident in every scene, wanting to do anything she can for her son and trying to fix everything. I don't think there was a single point where she faltered, and the part she played in the ending was immensely emotional.
There's also a solid support cast in Courtney B. Vance and Kathryn Newton. They drew in the much-needed family element which could have been lost to all the scenes with Ben and Holly out on their own.
You have to compare this to Beautiful Boy, it's difficult not to. They could be the same film, Ben Is Back just edges ahead for me though. I wasn't overly keen on the main actors in either film and both were carried by their parental leads. Both cover the drugs topic well from their own angles but here I felt we got a much better look at the family impact.
This rounded out a very emotional double bill at the cinema and what I actually came out thinking wasn't about this film in particular but that this year has given us some fantastic mum performances. Julia Roberts, Penelope Cruz and Nicole Kidman have managed to use their films to prove that they're giants in the acting world.
What you should do
I'd add Ben Is Back to my list of films to watch at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All I would really like is an attic that was as easy to get into as theirs.
After seeing Boy Erased I wasn't overly sure about Hedges as an actor, if I'm honest this has done little to sway that opinion in me. I don't feel like we get a massive range from him, possibly because these movies all feel like they've been made to win things over everything else? I'm not sure.
Hedges performance is brought up a level by the incredible performance from Julia Roberts, that woman truly is a treasure. The desperate nature of her character is so evident in every scene, wanting to do anything she can for her son and trying to fix everything. I don't think there was a single point where she faltered, and the part she played in the ending was immensely emotional.
There's also a solid support cast in Courtney B. Vance and Kathryn Newton. They drew in the much-needed family element which could have been lost to all the scenes with Ben and Holly out on their own.
You have to compare this to Beautiful Boy, it's difficult not to. They could be the same film, Ben Is Back just edges ahead for me though. I wasn't overly keen on the main actors in either film and both were carried by their parental leads. Both cover the drugs topic well from their own angles but here I felt we got a much better look at the family impact.
This rounded out a very emotional double bill at the cinema and what I actually came out thinking wasn't about this film in particular but that this year has given us some fantastic mum performances. Julia Roberts, Penelope Cruz and Nicole Kidman have managed to use their films to prove that they're giants in the acting world.
What you should do
I'd add Ben Is Back to my list of films to watch at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All I would really like is an attic that was as easy to get into as theirs.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 9, 2019
Half baked
jumanji next level is like an uninteresting game cutscene thats also unskippable its dull, frustrating, overlong and makes you wish you were doing something else. I actualy quite enjoyed the first instalment I it had some genuinely good ideas, great set pieces and some really fun action so i find it sad to say the sequel is not worth your time at all. Starting in the real world here lies its fist problem: not only are all the teens really boring and generic characters they are all also played by people that just cant act which absolutely kills any attachment to the characters and makes them seem more like one dimensional npcs in a cheap videogame. This would all be fine if the film jumped quickly into the game and the action but instead we get stuck with them for so long that i was begining to get restless way before we even begin to enter the jumanji. Once we do enter the game things do pick up but not by much as what we get is essentially a long drawn out re-skin of the first movie stuffed full of repetative humour and references. Its also contains some of the worst shot/lazy action scenes i have seen this year with not only poor cgi that offers no sense of weight but also no sense of thrill or excitement either. Long unnecessary scenes also plague the film too adding nothing to the story or character development and some jokes even go on for way to long even though they muster no laughs at all. Theres definitely some fun in watching the rock, kevin heart, jack black and karen gilinham act like thier in movie real world counterparts as they do a really impressive job of imitating the teen characters better than the teen actors do them selves. Another huge problem comes from each game character having only three lives as this immediately removes all threat/peril from the movie and again kills all tension too. If i had to sum up this sequel i would say its a movie made for people that talk through movies and i garantee if you go and see it at the cinema i bet thats what people will do because it lacks anything to keep even casual movie goers engaged and focused. More like disappointing dlc that you paid for upfront than 'next level' this movie really isnt worth your time. If you own the previous movies id stay home in the warm and watch them instead save yourself an over two hour slog of bad jokes and poor action.
TheFiend13420 (21 KP) rated Where The Scary Things Are (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022 (Updated Jun 28, 2022)
Excellent performances by virtually unknown cast (2 more)
Well written, fun and flows well
Beauty make-up job on the creature
The Loser's Club these kids are NOT
I have been waiting for this film to come out for months now. And it was totally worth the wait.
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an entertaining film. I definitely came out of it with a smile on my face. At the same time though, as an adult, it surprisingly gave me several pauses for thought. It's about change and friendship, jealousy and insecurity... things as a grown-up that you perhaps push to the back of your mind so that you can carry on. I was in danger of thinking a bit too deep at one point, but luckily something funny happened to distract me (much like real life).
But enough of that deep sigh moment.
Ralph is still the bumbling bad guy and inadvertently causes the mayhem that sets off the main storyline in the film. That coupled with the new whiffy... wifey...? in the arcade means that they get to meet a whole new world on the internet.
It's a fun way to think about going online, everyone milling around like it's a shopping centre. And I'm sure that we've all been in Ralph's position too, shopping on the internet and forgotten to be prepared with our credit card to checkout. Of course I don't think we've ever thought to do what he does to fix the problem.
Vanellope makes a few new friends in the form of Shank and her crew from GTA style game, Slaughter Race. Just like the first movie all the different styles went well together. But my favourite bit about their first outing in Slaughter Race were the player avatars. Those slightly stunted turns and limb movements were perfect and took me back to my days of game play. I've also got to give the shark an honourable mention, his next staring role should be "The Meg: The Musical".
I can't do a review for this and not mention the Princesses. I'm not sure they're as good as I'd hoped they'd be. Pocahontas gets the biggest praise for her constantly fluttering hair but they were all just kind of... there, and there wasn't much else. They do at least teach V that she can channel her inner Princess by staring into some water, but gazing at her reflection doesn't quite have the desired effect.
When the story goes back to Ralph it's a little sad to see that he can't let it go and see how Vanellope has found a new home. They do at least give him some redemption and he realises that she's a girl worth fighting for and goes about fixing all of the drama that he's caused.
As well as the fun there's some truths about the internet in there too. First rule of the internet, don't read the comments, and the troll at the Q&A. Good luck explaining those things to your kids... "When people grow up, some of them become dickhead and upset other people because they have nothing better to do with their spare time."
Watching this I did at least find an answer to the age old question of why I occasionally lose my internet connection! Watching all those poor unfortunate souls losing theirs... well it'll probably make me less stressed to imagine that happening when the whiffy box says no next time.
Honestly, this waffle will end soon...
Ralph Breaks The Internet is like the kids version of Ready Player One. I spent so much of the movie looking around for all the little hidden tidbits. What websites can you spot? Which characters? Dial-up Express amused me, and it's certainly one for the adults to laugh at. I also took a pause at Stan Lee, I nearly had my own Princess moment in a puddle of tears.
Lastly we obviously have to mention the credit scenes. Two of them. I got super annoyed when the credits started to roll, as you may well do, but scene one really turned that around. You have to stay right until the end for the second one, it will reeeeeally annoy you, so enjoy that!
What you should do
You should watch it. The kids will love it because of all the characters and daft antics, and you'll love it because of those two things and all the hidden references.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
So many choices. I wouldn't mind having my own amusement arcade... oooooooh or Princess hair... ooooooooooh or animals that sew clothes... ooooooooh or... I could be here a while, why don't you click on a pop up ad and go heart some videos instead of waiting around.
[I'd like to apologise for more waffle than usual, but when I accidentally put one Disney song title in a sentence I couldn't pass up the chance to try for more!]
But enough of that deep sigh moment.
Ralph is still the bumbling bad guy and inadvertently causes the mayhem that sets off the main storyline in the film. That coupled with the new whiffy... wifey...? in the arcade means that they get to meet a whole new world on the internet.
It's a fun way to think about going online, everyone milling around like it's a shopping centre. And I'm sure that we've all been in Ralph's position too, shopping on the internet and forgotten to be prepared with our credit card to checkout. Of course I don't think we've ever thought to do what he does to fix the problem.
Vanellope makes a few new friends in the form of Shank and her crew from GTA style game, Slaughter Race. Just like the first movie all the different styles went well together. But my favourite bit about their first outing in Slaughter Race were the player avatars. Those slightly stunted turns and limb movements were perfect and took me back to my days of game play. I've also got to give the shark an honourable mention, his next staring role should be "The Meg: The Musical".
I can't do a review for this and not mention the Princesses. I'm not sure they're as good as I'd hoped they'd be. Pocahontas gets the biggest praise for her constantly fluttering hair but they were all just kind of... there, and there wasn't much else. They do at least teach V that she can channel her inner Princess by staring into some water, but gazing at her reflection doesn't quite have the desired effect.
When the story goes back to Ralph it's a little sad to see that he can't let it go and see how Vanellope has found a new home. They do at least give him some redemption and he realises that she's a girl worth fighting for and goes about fixing all of the drama that he's caused.
As well as the fun there's some truths about the internet in there too. First rule of the internet, don't read the comments, and the troll at the Q&A. Good luck explaining those things to your kids... "When people grow up, some of them become dickhead and upset other people because they have nothing better to do with their spare time."
Watching this I did at least find an answer to the age old question of why I occasionally lose my internet connection! Watching all those poor unfortunate souls losing theirs... well it'll probably make me less stressed to imagine that happening when the whiffy box says no next time.
Honestly, this waffle will end soon...
Ralph Breaks The Internet is like the kids version of Ready Player One. I spent so much of the movie looking around for all the little hidden tidbits. What websites can you spot? Which characters? Dial-up Express amused me, and it's certainly one for the adults to laugh at. I also took a pause at Stan Lee, I nearly had my own Princess moment in a puddle of tears.
Lastly we obviously have to mention the credit scenes. Two of them. I got super annoyed when the credits started to roll, as you may well do, but scene one really turned that around. You have to stay right until the end for the second one, it will reeeeeally annoy you, so enjoy that!
What you should do
You should watch it. The kids will love it because of all the characters and daft antics, and you'll love it because of those two things and all the hidden references.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
So many choices. I wouldn't mind having my own amusement arcade... oooooooh or Princess hair... ooooooooooh or animals that sew clothes... ooooooooh or... I could be here a while, why don't you click on a pop up ad and go heart some videos instead of waiting around.
[I'd like to apologise for more waffle than usual, but when I accidentally put one Disney song title in a sentence I couldn't pass up the chance to try for more!]
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.