Search
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Bone Dressing (Book 1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I got this as a read to review, and it goes without saying (especially once you've read my review!) that what I am about to write is completely honest. I don't think I can explain my feelings about this book without letting spoilers slip, so please beware!
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dukes of Hazzard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Those good ol’ boys from Hazzard County are back, in the film version of one of the most enduring series from the 70’s.
For those unfamiliar with the series, each week Cousins Bo and Luke Duke used their super charged Dodge Charger, christened “The General Lee”, to avoid corrupt police, city overlord Boss Hogg, and bad guys of the week.
If this sounds very simplistic, it is, yet the show was a huge ratings sensation as were subsequent T.V. reunions after the show completed its run. Thanks to reruns on syndication and the recent DVD sales, a new generation is encountering the Dukes and in many ways, that is who the new film is targeted to.
Starring Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott as Luke and Bo Duke, the film follows the basic theme of the series as the two cousins joke with one another as they run Moonshine for their Uncle Jessie (Willie Nelson), and try to stay one step ahead of the Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C. Gainey),
As the film opens, Bo is concerned about defending his title in the annual road rally and tying the record with his 4th consecutive win. Luke is concerned about staying one step ahead of a shotgun toting father & son duo who aren’t thrilled about his numerous dalliances with the daughter.
It is all fun and games until local overlord Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), seizes the family farm when he plants a still on the property and drives the Dukes out. Not ones to take it sitting down, Bo, Luke, and Cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson), set out to discover why Boss Hogg is acquiring through ruthless means all of the land in the outlying areas of Hazzard County.
Bo and Luke are forced to flee Hazzard County and venture to Atlanta in order to gain further insight into Boss Hogg’s plans, which results in some funny fish-out-of-water moments when Bo and Luke have to deal with yuppies, college dorms, and the ‘hood as well as city police and the Boss himself.
Of course in keeping with the show, there will be countless car chases, spectacular jumps, and more than enough T&A thanks to Simpson, but what is surprising is that the film’s humor for the most part works.
Directed by Jay Chandrasekher of the Broken Lizard comedy troupe, the film does have its share of moments that may raise a few eyebrows as drug use, sex, and shots to the groin are present in this film, as is language that is more colorful than anything from the original series.
That being said, it is important to remember, that times have changed greatly since the Dukes first aired and you cannot blame the film makers for attempting to reach out to a broader audience. Such is the running joke of Bo being more concerned with his car than with woman, and his inability to speak with the object of his affections without fainting. This is quite a change from the unflappable character of the television show, yet one that still allows the good natured appeal of the character to remain intact.
The cast works well, especially the chemistry between Knoxville and Scott, as well as the scenery chewing performance of Reynolds who seems to be having the time of his life in the role. Much has been made of Simpson’s part, but it is mostly a limited role that offers her little chance to do much more than serve as eye candy, and does not show if she is capable of doing much more.
Nelson is sadly underused, but when he is on screen he raises the bar as his easygoing charm is a perfect match for Uncle Jessie.
While the film is in no way great cinema, it is at times an enjoyable bit of nostalgia to the days when Friday nights growing up meant dinner in front of the television watching the Dukes.
If car chases and some light comedy are what you are in the mood for, and you do not mind a thin story, you can do a lot worse than the Dukes.
For those unfamiliar with the series, each week Cousins Bo and Luke Duke used their super charged Dodge Charger, christened “The General Lee”, to avoid corrupt police, city overlord Boss Hogg, and bad guys of the week.
If this sounds very simplistic, it is, yet the show was a huge ratings sensation as were subsequent T.V. reunions after the show completed its run. Thanks to reruns on syndication and the recent DVD sales, a new generation is encountering the Dukes and in many ways, that is who the new film is targeted to.
Starring Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott as Luke and Bo Duke, the film follows the basic theme of the series as the two cousins joke with one another as they run Moonshine for their Uncle Jessie (Willie Nelson), and try to stay one step ahead of the Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C. Gainey),
As the film opens, Bo is concerned about defending his title in the annual road rally and tying the record with his 4th consecutive win. Luke is concerned about staying one step ahead of a shotgun toting father & son duo who aren’t thrilled about his numerous dalliances with the daughter.
It is all fun and games until local overlord Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), seizes the family farm when he plants a still on the property and drives the Dukes out. Not ones to take it sitting down, Bo, Luke, and Cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson), set out to discover why Boss Hogg is acquiring through ruthless means all of the land in the outlying areas of Hazzard County.
Bo and Luke are forced to flee Hazzard County and venture to Atlanta in order to gain further insight into Boss Hogg’s plans, which results in some funny fish-out-of-water moments when Bo and Luke have to deal with yuppies, college dorms, and the ‘hood as well as city police and the Boss himself.
Of course in keeping with the show, there will be countless car chases, spectacular jumps, and more than enough T&A thanks to Simpson, but what is surprising is that the film’s humor for the most part works.
Directed by Jay Chandrasekher of the Broken Lizard comedy troupe, the film does have its share of moments that may raise a few eyebrows as drug use, sex, and shots to the groin are present in this film, as is language that is more colorful than anything from the original series.
That being said, it is important to remember, that times have changed greatly since the Dukes first aired and you cannot blame the film makers for attempting to reach out to a broader audience. Such is the running joke of Bo being more concerned with his car than with woman, and his inability to speak with the object of his affections without fainting. This is quite a change from the unflappable character of the television show, yet one that still allows the good natured appeal of the character to remain intact.
The cast works well, especially the chemistry between Knoxville and Scott, as well as the scenery chewing performance of Reynolds who seems to be having the time of his life in the role. Much has been made of Simpson’s part, but it is mostly a limited role that offers her little chance to do much more than serve as eye candy, and does not show if she is capable of doing much more.
Nelson is sadly underused, but when he is on screen he raises the bar as his easygoing charm is a perfect match for Uncle Jessie.
While the film is in no way great cinema, it is at times an enjoyable bit of nostalgia to the days when Friday nights growing up meant dinner in front of the television watching the Dukes.
If car chases and some light comedy are what you are in the mood for, and you do not mind a thin story, you can do a lot worse than the Dukes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The timeless children’s tale of Jack and the Beanstalk gets a high-tech update in the new film Jack the Giant Slayer. Directed by Bryan Singer, the new version mixes in special effects with romance, action, and humor to provide a refreshing update of a fairytale that should appeal to adults and children alike. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a simple farmer who’s raised by his uncle after the passing of his father. As a boy, Jack enjoyed the tales of long ago, especially those of the time when giants came down from the sky and attacked the earth before being thwarted by King Eric and his magical crown.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
Better than Suicide Squad
Did you catch the 2016 DCEU disappointment SUICIDE SQUAD with Will Smith as Deadshot and Jared Leto as the Joker? Many people (myself included) thought that that film was "just fine, nothing special" but were impressed with the way Margot Robbie handled the Harley Quinn character and wished for a standalone film that featured the Harley Quinn character.
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fitness Chef Healthy Food - Calisthenics Meal Plan
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
If you’re training to reach your fitness goals, you’ll know that 80% of your results come from...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Five years after Godzilla saved us from the MUTO attack the world (or some of it at least) wants to see an end to the potential threat of the Titans. Monarch are studying them and hiding them away from the world, but there are calls to destroy the monsters before more devastation befalls the planet?
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.