Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2470 KP) rated Death of a Neighborhood Scrooge in Books
Dec 12, 2018
Bah Humbug Murder
Thanks to her neighbor Lance, freelance writer Jaine Austen is spending Christmas at a Bel Air mansion. It's not all luxury, however, when Jaine gets roped into helping her temporary neighbor polish his script. Scotty Parker is a former child actor best known for playing Tiny Tim in a movie version of A Christmas Carol, but now he'd be a shoe in to play Scrooge, complete with penny pinching ways and fights with neighbors. Someone has had enough, and Jaine finds Scotty's body on Christmas morning. With the police focusing on her, Jaine begins her own investigation. But which of the many suspects actually killed Scotty?
Those familiar with the series know exactly what to expect here, and they won't be disappointed. The murder may take place a little later in the book than in some series I read, but we are busy meeting suspects and getting motives, so when Scotty does die, we can jump right in. Jaine once again brings the case to a satisfactory conclusion. We also have a couple of fun sub-plots involving Jaine's on-line dating misadventures and a cruise her parents are taking with their neighbors. There are plenty of laughs, chuckles, and grins. The characters lean toward caricature, but it works for this series. The pages fly by all too quickly as always.
Those familiar with the series know exactly what to expect here, and they won't be disappointed. The murder may take place a little later in the book than in some series I read, but we are busy meeting suspects and getting motives, so when Scotty does die, we can jump right in. Jaine once again brings the case to a satisfactory conclusion. We also have a couple of fun sub-plots involving Jaine's on-line dating misadventures and a cruise her parents are taking with their neighbors. There are plenty of laughs, chuckles, and grins. The characters lean toward caricature, but it works for this series. The pages fly by all too quickly as always.
Unqualified: Love and Relationship Advice from a Celebrity Who Just Wants to Help
7.0
Rate It
Book
Part advice, part memoir UNQUALIFIED will reveal Anna's unique take on "how to navigate the bizarre,...
memoir celebrity
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
The film's "live or die" premise is dumb, dangerous, and downright offensive. (4 more)
A totally lousy and illogical love story that lacks any heart.
The dialogue is almost as bad as Adam's 8-year-old-grade-level music lyrics.
It's far too frustrating and bland to be emotionally effective. The only pity I felt was for myself for having to sit through it for two hours.
If I Stay is unforgivable and reprehensible garbage. It should be avoided like the plague.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. If I Stay disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level.
Imagine yourself in a situation where your whole life is turned upside-down in an instant, and nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the troubling position young Mia Hall is faced with in If I Stay, after her and her family are involved in a terrible car accident. Mia wakes up from the crash, only to discover that she’s having some sort of transcendental experience, where she sees her own lifeless body being treated by paramedics. In her ghost-like form, no one is able to see or hear her, leaving her helpless as she watches her tragedy unfold. The devastating crash put her into a comatose state, and as she teeters on the verge of life and death, she’s informed by her nurse that whether or not she lives is entirely predicated on her will to survive. Based on the young adult novel by Gayle Forman, If I Stay asks us if life is still worth living even when all hope appears to be lost. Whether it’s really even worth it to endure life’s cruel hardship and heartache, and to muster the courage to face another day.
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 23, 2020)
A Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
Call Of The Wild is such a lovely heartfelt movie that will leave everyone that goes to see it with that warm tingly feeling inside their chest and a nice big smile on thier face. Ive seen this film is getting a lot of hate because of its over reliance on cgi animals and while I will admit I found it very distracting to start with after 10 minutes I became accustom and think the movie is much better for using it. Why you ask? well the movie to me is obviously aimed at children and the over all feel of it to me was very much like a classic Disney animated cartoon. Let me explain, theres just something so lovely, peaceful and magical about the whole thing and the way its structured, how exaggerated the characters are, the world it builds and the story. See they all just all come together to give you those same feelings you had when you watched a fairytale like beauty and the beast for the first time. Having the dog be cgi lets him have more cartoonish/exaggerated animations and a way more expressive face really helps us to relate to him better, clearly see how hes feeling and to add to this constant sense of warmth/magic thats present throughout. Theres also a fantastic sense of adventure here and the film uses stunning locations to constantly wow us and keep us in this picturesque perfect dream or tranquil fantasy kind of state. Harrison ford is splendid here playing a lonely man whos almost given up hope of being truly happy until Buck comes along. His perfomance is so touching and you can clearly hear in his Blade Runner style narrations the sadness and pain in his heart which immediately helps you to feel sympathy towards him. Bucks story is equally as sad too, he longs to be part of a pack/family of his own and to one day become a leader answering to no one but himself. His motivations are shown in the form of a powerful and strong black wolf that keeps his confidence up and his determination strong and theres so many messages about never giving up, pushing forward and trusting in your destiny too that its hard not to become fully engrossed in his journey. It may be a simple tale but its an absolute joy to watch and its motivational themes are guaranteed to make anyone think positively about thier own life while watching. I also can not go without mentioning Dan Stevens, boy is this guy talented. His acting here is devilishly cartoonish, over the top wicked and had me grinning constantly in pure delight. Call Of The Wild is an all out beautiful, fun, adorable and exciting adventure for all the family to enjoy and I can not wait till it comes out to buy on 4k.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
I admit, I went into this with low expectations. It looked like a karaoke kids movie from an animation studio that I do not rate that highly. But what do I know?
Illumination studios have managed to rack up a “Stinker” on this blog with The Lorax (3D) (2012), which was filled with songs which did not seem to go with the movie and maybe that was in my mind when I first saw the trailer for this, but I must admit, that I was wrong.
The story focuses around a Koala Bear (Matthew McConauhey) who owns his dream theatre in New York, but it is about to fail big. He ends up setting up singing contest in order to try and save it and a verity of animals from this this Zootopia styled world inhabited solely by animals, are entered into the competition.
The writing was good, strong and simple. The characters had enough depth, the song choices were good and the antics surrounding Matthew McConauhey’s efforts to keep his theatre open against the odds were genuinely funny.
It was also nice to see that several character tropes were not pandered too, such as the house wife pig (Reese Witherspoon) goes to elaborate lengths to take part, by automating her house to get her litter of piglets to school and her middle management husband to work, all of whom take her for granted so much that they fail to even notice that she is not there.
But instead of attacking her housewife status and saying that she was being hampered by this “boring” life and should be a singer and follow her dreams as many films would suggest, this simply asks for a balance. That impressed me… a lot.
Well worth a watch and defiantly one for the whole family.
Illumination studios have managed to rack up a “Stinker” on this blog with The Lorax (3D) (2012), which was filled with songs which did not seem to go with the movie and maybe that was in my mind when I first saw the trailer for this, but I must admit, that I was wrong.
The story focuses around a Koala Bear (Matthew McConauhey) who owns his dream theatre in New York, but it is about to fail big. He ends up setting up singing contest in order to try and save it and a verity of animals from this this Zootopia styled world inhabited solely by animals, are entered into the competition.
The writing was good, strong and simple. The characters had enough depth, the song choices were good and the antics surrounding Matthew McConauhey’s efforts to keep his theatre open against the odds were genuinely funny.
It was also nice to see that several character tropes were not pandered too, such as the house wife pig (Reese Witherspoon) goes to elaborate lengths to take part, by automating her house to get her litter of piglets to school and her middle management husband to work, all of whom take her for granted so much that they fail to even notice that she is not there.
But instead of attacking her housewife status and saying that she was being hampered by this “boring” life and should be a singer and follow her dreams as many films would suggest, this simply asks for a balance. That impressed me… a lot.
Well worth a watch and defiantly one for the whole family.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bride of Chucky (1998) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
One of those 'guilty pleasures' you here so much about
Bride of Chucky is a prime example of what Horror films were like in the aftermath of Scream.
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
