Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary in Books
May 15, 2019 (Updated May 15, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
What the 'Blurb' says:
When Dr. Louis Creed takes a new job and moves his family to the idyllic rural town of Ludlow, Maine, this new beginning seems too good to be true. Despite Ludlow’s tranquility, an undercurrent of danger exists here. Those trucks on the road outside the Creed’s beautiful old home travel by just a little too quickly, for one thing…as is evidenced by the makeshift graveyard in the nearby woods where generations of children have buried their beloved pets. Then there are the warnings to Louis both real and from the depths of his nightmares that he should not venture beyond the borders of this little graveyard where another burial ground lures with seductive promises and ungodly temptations. A blood-chilling truth is hidden there—one more terrifying than death itself, and hideously more powerful. As Louis is about to discover for himself sometimes, dead is better…-
My Thoughts:
I've just finished 'Pet Sematary' and have mixed thoughts on this.
On the positive, I liked the creepy, macabre writing. This book is full of dark atmosphere and some parts of this book gave me the chills just reading them. The characters are believable, even if some of their actions were a bit questionable and I liked how the story flowed.
However, what I wasn't too keen on, was the fact that during the book, a couple of the characters, particularly the family's cat Winston Churchill and Ellie,the daughter, were built up to be important characters and in the end, were forgotten about. Whilst reading this, I spent a lot of the time wondering what had happened to them, when I should have been focusing on what was actually going on in the story at that time. Churchill does get rediscovered at the end of this book, but I'm still unsure what happened to Ellie. So I don't think all of the strands of story were tied up as well as they should have been and for me, the ending of this book was just ok, if slightly frustrating, due to the actions of certain characters.
I haven't seen the original film adaptation of this novel, but I'd be interested in watching the adaptation, to see how this translates into film.
If you want a creepy tale to read for Halloween, you might want to consider this book.
My Rating *** ½
When Dr. Louis Creed takes a new job and moves his family to the idyllic rural town of Ludlow, Maine, this new beginning seems too good to be true. Despite Ludlow’s tranquility, an undercurrent of danger exists here. Those trucks on the road outside the Creed’s beautiful old home travel by just a little too quickly, for one thing…as is evidenced by the makeshift graveyard in the nearby woods where generations of children have buried their beloved pets. Then there are the warnings to Louis both real and from the depths of his nightmares that he should not venture beyond the borders of this little graveyard where another burial ground lures with seductive promises and ungodly temptations. A blood-chilling truth is hidden there—one more terrifying than death itself, and hideously more powerful. As Louis is about to discover for himself sometimes, dead is better…-
My Thoughts:
I've just finished 'Pet Sematary' and have mixed thoughts on this.
On the positive, I liked the creepy, macabre writing. This book is full of dark atmosphere and some parts of this book gave me the chills just reading them. The characters are believable, even if some of their actions were a bit questionable and I liked how the story flowed.
However, what I wasn't too keen on, was the fact that during the book, a couple of the characters, particularly the family's cat Winston Churchill and Ellie,the daughter, were built up to be important characters and in the end, were forgotten about. Whilst reading this, I spent a lot of the time wondering what had happened to them, when I should have been focusing on what was actually going on in the story at that time. Churchill does get rediscovered at the end of this book, but I'm still unsure what happened to Ellie. So I don't think all of the strands of story were tied up as well as they should have been and for me, the ending of this book was just ok, if slightly frustrating, due to the actions of certain characters.
I haven't seen the original film adaptation of this novel, but I'd be interested in watching the adaptation, to see how this translates into film.
If you want a creepy tale to read for Halloween, you might want to consider this book.
My Rating *** ½
tonidavis (353 KP) rated To the Bone (2017) in Movies
Jul 15, 2017
Best adaptation of anorexia I've ever seen (2 more)
Very real
Every actor outstanding
A must watch!
I've read and watched a lot of film programs and read a lot of book on subject like this. Whilst I have never had an eating disorder my self harming and sucided when younger has caused me to have in patient treatment. As I've recovered and been stable enough to get a psychology degree I know look at the show different that I did when I was younger. However I do like to see how media pursue these issues and if they handle them with the care that needed. This film is beautifully handled ever single actor portrayed there part beautifully and made it so real. The story was brilliant and true their was no glamering or Hollywood effect it was something that could so easily be real. I fell for every character and truely hope people watch and take awake front this film on how hard recovery is but people can recover if given right support and the right time.
Courtney (25 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019 (Updated Feb 10, 2019)
There's action (2 more)
Has history
Movie adaptation from a game
Can be a bit confusing (2 more)
Not enough suspense
A bit predictable
El español asesino
Contains spoilers, click to show
So... this film is adapted from a game and I did like the whole animus style BUT I prefer the games.
Not saying it's boring because I did end up watching it all just to see what happened next, but not like an exciting feeling to see what's going to happen just to see if my guesses were in fact true.
The logic behind the animus I think was presented as well as it could be.
The actor I think fitted his role well and there was the odd big name in the film.
Even though there was action it still felt like there was a calmness to the film, like there was the same tone of voices throughout the film, hard to explain what I mean.
I think the story could have been explained a bit better than it had been.
It's one of those films eere once you've watched it, you would probably not watch it again for a while maybe a year or so.
Not saying it's boring because I did end up watching it all just to see what happened next, but not like an exciting feeling to see what's going to happen just to see if my guesses were in fact true.
The logic behind the animus I think was presented as well as it could be.
The actor I think fitted his role well and there was the odd big name in the film.
Even though there was action it still felt like there was a calmness to the film, like there was the same tone of voices throughout the film, hard to explain what I mean.
I think the story could have been explained a bit better than it had been.
It's one of those films eere once you've watched it, you would probably not watch it again for a while maybe a year or so.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Once again, a remake that didn't need to be made
Another "live action version" of a Disney classic; another waste of effort. I can't see anyone watching this and thinking it was in any way an improvement over the original. Timothy Mouse is replaced by children, they try to explain why Dumbo needs a feather, the pink elephant scene is a nice attempt at homage but implausible.
I had no idea until the credits rolled that Tim Burton had directed - his touch is completely absent. I suppose in hindsight Micheal Keaton's hairpiece was pure Burton but otherwise any director could have been involved.
There is an odd feel about the scenes in the theme park, as if a Disney film is itself suggesting theme parks are money-grabbing, exploitative tat-mongers.
While there were some nice nods to the original film (DeVito singing Casey Jr's theme, Timothy Mouse's cameo and "baby of mine", the whole plot adaptation just failed.
It may have been a half-decent film in its own right, but as a remake of a classic it has to do it justice and it just plain did not.
I had no idea until the credits rolled that Tim Burton had directed - his touch is completely absent. I suppose in hindsight Micheal Keaton's hairpiece was pure Burton but otherwise any director could have been involved.
There is an odd feel about the scenes in the theme park, as if a Disney film is itself suggesting theme parks are money-grabbing, exploitative tat-mongers.
While there were some nice nods to the original film (DeVito singing Casey Jr's theme, Timothy Mouse's cameo and "baby of mine", the whole plot adaptation just failed.
It may have been a half-decent film in its own right, but as a remake of a classic it has to do it justice and it just plain did not.
Awix (3310 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Jun 1, 2018
Bleak British Repressed Sexuality a Go Go!
Handsomely mounted BBC film starts off looking like many another period-set literary adaptation, then turns into something rather different. Newlyweds Edward and Florence are on the brink of their wedding night; both are nervous, and struggling with the expectations society and their upbringing has placed upon them. (The fact that society hasn't bothered to educate them in the slightest about what can, or should, go on in the bedroom really doesn't help on this voyage into, or possibly out of, virgin territory.) Not all goes to plan; a small but genuine tragedy unfolds.
Not the kind of film you walk home from whistling, unless you're some kind of militant celibacy advocate, but an undeniably fine one (or so it seems to me): very good performances from the young stars, and well-judged direction. Initially the film seems like a slightly dark comedy-drama of manners (the excruciating scenes of people failing to have sex are very awkward to watch), but it develops into something profoundly moving and deeply sad before the end. Thank God for the permissive society.
Not the kind of film you walk home from whistling, unless you're some kind of militant celibacy advocate, but an undeniably fine one (or so it seems to me): very good performances from the young stars, and well-judged direction. Initially the film seems like a slightly dark comedy-drama of manners (the excruciating scenes of people failing to have sex are very awkward to watch), but it develops into something profoundly moving and deeply sad before the end. Thank God for the permissive society.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated American Gods in TV
Jul 23, 2018 (Updated Jul 23, 2018)
Note the Highlighted Letters in the Sign
I am about halfway through season one and I thought I would drop my thoughts down in this app like a deus ex machina. Cue angels singing. The visual representations of the mythical are quite powerfully brought to life by the show.
Ian McShane is delightful as Mr. Wednesday. Gillian Anderson is versatile and surprising as Media. The principal character is fleshed out more in the small screen adaptation, which I think was necessary but it also deviates from the book.
Anyhow, Shadow Moon is no longer such a sponge or an empty vessel. Pick your metaphor. In the book, he was seemingly void of much personal detail. He was little more than the sum of his fantastic experiences and I did like that about the book. They also brought his character's wife more to life in the show, which I think was a mistake because she is so mysterious and downright creepy in the novel.
Definitely worth watching even if, like me, you prefer the book. Think of them as two separate entities and you'll get through just fine.
Ian McShane is delightful as Mr. Wednesday. Gillian Anderson is versatile and surprising as Media. The principal character is fleshed out more in the small screen adaptation, which I think was necessary but it also deviates from the book.
Anyhow, Shadow Moon is no longer such a sponge or an empty vessel. Pick your metaphor. In the book, he was seemingly void of much personal detail. He was little more than the sum of his fantastic experiences and I did like that about the book. They also brought his character's wife more to life in the show, which I think was a mistake because she is so mysterious and downright creepy in the novel.
Definitely worth watching even if, like me, you prefer the book. Think of them as two separate entities and you'll get through just fine.
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
I'm floating right now. Not in the sewers, but on cloud nine kazillion after experiencing all of the awesomeness that is the new IT movie. They didn't clown around with this new one. Okay, puns out of the way(for now), it was a fantastic film. Not only was justice served to the original adaptation, but I truly feel it surpassed it and rose above all of the excitement and expectations surrounding it. The kids couldn't have been casted any better I don't think, direction that resulted in a look and feel that was amazing, huge thumbs up on costuming, make-up, and effects, and very well written with that perfect balance of horror and humor; I laughed a lot. The new Pennywise is to die for. What Tim Curry's version did for my generation and taking fear of clowns to a whole new level, Bill Skarsgard's will do the same for the current generation. To this day I feel uneasy when I see sewer drains and do my damnedest to avoid them. In summary, IT was well made(pun intended) and is a must see.
Sara Cox (1845 KP) rated The War of the Worlds in TV
Dec 3, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was really excited for this series. I have read the book a number of times and it is one of my favourites. I thought at first they were keeping very true to the book, although I have no idea why the writers decided to add an unnecessary love triangle into the mix which has no bearing on the story whatsoever. The filming and effects we good, I was really impressed with the tripods. However, when we finally saw the martians I was disappointed with the way they were portrayed, I was expecting tentacles and these beings (that I might add were meant to be of higher intelligence and based on the tripods have good dexterity) seemed a bit weak and useless. The acting on the whole was good, although at times it seemed people were unaware that the martians were terrifying and just seemed to be taking a leisure walk away rather than the chaos and fear driven manic you would expect. This is better than most adaptation of H.G.Wells's classic. The final episode was weak and didn't follow the storyline which was highly disappointing.