Search
Search results
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Aug 29, 2021
Something Wicker This Way Comes
Contains spoilers, click to show
Forgive me, Father, for I am about to spoil this whole film. I am a novice film reviewer, and as such, I know no other way.
This film opens up with a police officer (Sergeant Howie) flying to an island in Scotland. I knew something was up when the older gentlemen in the harbor refused to send a dinghy for him to get onto the island. The older men seemed to be in on some kind of joke. As my teenager would say, “Very sus.”
The rather uppity lawman, portrayed quite convincingly by Edward Woodward, is searching for a girl on the island. The girl, Rowan Morrison, was reported missing by way of an anonymous letter sent to the mainland.
We are then introduced to the woman who is allegedly the missing girl’s mother. She runs the most unsettling candy shop ever. There are a lot of chocolate bunnies, which I am normally all in favor of. But she corrects the officer when he refers to them as bunnies. They are rabbits, of course. Because that increases the creepiness factor by ten.
Howie’s lodging is above a righteously rollicking pub. The locals sing and play about in the pub, and all seems normal.
Forward to the next scene. Holy unexpected nudity, Batman. I am glad my son chose to stay in his room and play Roblox. There are a bunch of naked locals openly copulating in and around the churchyard. Of course, it is later explained that it is not a churchyard, because poor, very stodgy, very Puritan Sergeant Howie has stumbled upon an island of RECKLESS HEATHEN PAGANS.
The lovely Britt Ekland portrays Willow, the barmaid. In a scene early on, she does a ritualistic dance in the nude, in the room next to the very tempted police officer. My boyfriend correctly observed that Howie should stay away from this woman, as she is clearly a siren. Her dance moves were odd to me, and at one point, I asked aloud, “What is she doing?” My boyfriend responded, “She’s twerking.”
The plot thickens like a good rabbit stew. Christopher Lee aptly portrays Lord Summerisle, the leader of the island. Summerisle makes some strange claims about the island, and says the women there get pregnant asexually by way of a ritual. This claim seems counterintuitive, since there seemed to be a lot of unprotected boinking going on by various members of the island, in the open air no less. But hey, maybe these adulterated pagans missed the lecture on the birds and the bees.
As a heathen myself, I didn’t find this movie too horrific until it neared the end. I was more focused on Sergeant Howie’s unwillingness to entertain a faith other than his own. The scenery was breathtaking, as it was filmed entirely on location in Scotland.
I’m not really going to spoil every detail of the ending. But I must observe that this is the strangest version of The 40-Year-Old Virgin I have ever seen.
This film opens up with a police officer (Sergeant Howie) flying to an island in Scotland. I knew something was up when the older gentlemen in the harbor refused to send a dinghy for him to get onto the island. The older men seemed to be in on some kind of joke. As my teenager would say, “Very sus.”
The rather uppity lawman, portrayed quite convincingly by Edward Woodward, is searching for a girl on the island. The girl, Rowan Morrison, was reported missing by way of an anonymous letter sent to the mainland.
We are then introduced to the woman who is allegedly the missing girl’s mother. She runs the most unsettling candy shop ever. There are a lot of chocolate bunnies, which I am normally all in favor of. But she corrects the officer when he refers to them as bunnies. They are rabbits, of course. Because that increases the creepiness factor by ten.
Howie’s lodging is above a righteously rollicking pub. The locals sing and play about in the pub, and all seems normal.
Forward to the next scene. Holy unexpected nudity, Batman. I am glad my son chose to stay in his room and play Roblox. There are a bunch of naked locals openly copulating in and around the churchyard. Of course, it is later explained that it is not a churchyard, because poor, very stodgy, very Puritan Sergeant Howie has stumbled upon an island of RECKLESS HEATHEN PAGANS.
The lovely Britt Ekland portrays Willow, the barmaid. In a scene early on, she does a ritualistic dance in the nude, in the room next to the very tempted police officer. My boyfriend correctly observed that Howie should stay away from this woman, as she is clearly a siren. Her dance moves were odd to me, and at one point, I asked aloud, “What is she doing?” My boyfriend responded, “She’s twerking.”
The plot thickens like a good rabbit stew. Christopher Lee aptly portrays Lord Summerisle, the leader of the island. Summerisle makes some strange claims about the island, and says the women there get pregnant asexually by way of a ritual. This claim seems counterintuitive, since there seemed to be a lot of unprotected boinking going on by various members of the island, in the open air no less. But hey, maybe these adulterated pagans missed the lecture on the birds and the bees.
As a heathen myself, I didn’t find this movie too horrific until it neared the end. I was more focused on Sergeant Howie’s unwillingness to entertain a faith other than his own. The scenery was breathtaking, as it was filmed entirely on location in Scotland.
I’m not really going to spoil every detail of the ending. But I must observe that this is the strangest version of The 40-Year-Old Virgin I have ever seen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
"Meanwhile, at the Hall Of Justice..."
This movie is the culmination of a childhood full of Saturday mornings in front of the tv in pajamas with a bowl of cereal. "Superfriends" was superheroes at it's most basic. The bad guys wanted to take over or destroy the world and the good guys have to stop them. That was the depth of the plots for both those classic cartoons, and this movie. It's pure cartoon fun brought to life, and I loved every minute of it.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
Katarzyna Krasuska (81 KP) rated Behind Closed Doors in Books
Aug 10, 2018
The book that made me angry
Contains spoilers, click to show
So, where do i start?
It took me one and a half day to read it, purely because I wanted to get it over with...
I must warn you, there might be some spoilers here, so unless you're not interested in reading the book I wouldn't continue with the review.
I just found the entire story so unrealistic and badly written, that it really makes me angry when I see all these five star reviews. For what, I'm asking?
Let me take you through some of my biggest issues with the story:
Issue number 1.:
Imagine you're 32 years old Grace, single, with the most amazing job as a buyer for Harrods with constant trips to South America. You're also about to become a legal guardian to your little sister with Down Syndrome. You meet this gorgeous man named Jack, whom you immediately fall in love with due to a lovely act of kindness towards your sister. This man within no time at all proposes to you and with that asks you to quit your job, sell your house and let him be the legal guardian as well. Any alarm bells yet??
He then says he wants the wedding to happen straight away. He's very manipulative, he makes all the decisions about the ceremony by himself; he decides the date, the venue, he even picks your dress.
Now the biggest giveaway that the fella is bad news is when he disappears on your wedding night and doesn't answer his phone, then in the morning texts you saying: Stop being so dramatic! I'll see you in front of the hotel at 11.
Wouldn't this be enough? Wouldn't you start thinking, that maybe you don't know enough about your husband, that you rushed into things?
What responsible woman would ever do that? I mean, seriously?! Ok, maybe if she didn't have Millie(her sister) and thought, that this might be the last chance to be with someone, than maybe she would agree for that quick a wedding. Or if she didn't have that good a job... Not like that though, I just don't see it. I think this could only happen if Grace herself had some sort of personality disorder or at least a very, very low self esteem.
Issue number 2.:
The constant threats about sending Millie to asylum...what asylum? This isn't Batman and Gotham city, asylums like that don't exist anymore. And since when people with Down Syndrome are held in Psychiatric Hospitals (as that's what they're called!). Not just that, you can't just admit someone to one of them. There are assessments and number of tests done with the patient, which means that only good things could come out that, as Millie would have told doctors what's really happening and the police would be called...simple.
Issue number 3.:
Grace had so many chances to escape, that it's actually funny. She could scream in the restaurant, shout for help, refuse to leave, do something!!
Issue number 4.:
Then there's the ending...
Grace in some miraculous way gets away with murder... In this fantasy world filled with lawyers, psychopaths & wealth, the author didn't think about forensics...hmm, or is it just me?
Even though I can honestly say I've read worse (Husband's secret, Sister's secret etc), this was a very painful and frustrating read...
It took me one and a half day to read it, purely because I wanted to get it over with...
I must warn you, there might be some spoilers here, so unless you're not interested in reading the book I wouldn't continue with the review.
I just found the entire story so unrealistic and badly written, that it really makes me angry when I see all these five star reviews. For what, I'm asking?
Let me take you through some of my biggest issues with the story:
Issue number 1.:
Imagine you're 32 years old Grace, single, with the most amazing job as a buyer for Harrods with constant trips to South America. You're also about to become a legal guardian to your little sister with Down Syndrome. You meet this gorgeous man named Jack, whom you immediately fall in love with due to a lovely act of kindness towards your sister. This man within no time at all proposes to you and with that asks you to quit your job, sell your house and let him be the legal guardian as well. Any alarm bells yet??
He then says he wants the wedding to happen straight away. He's very manipulative, he makes all the decisions about the ceremony by himself; he decides the date, the venue, he even picks your dress.
Now the biggest giveaway that the fella is bad news is when he disappears on your wedding night and doesn't answer his phone, then in the morning texts you saying: Stop being so dramatic! I'll see you in front of the hotel at 11.
Wouldn't this be enough? Wouldn't you start thinking, that maybe you don't know enough about your husband, that you rushed into things?
What responsible woman would ever do that? I mean, seriously?! Ok, maybe if she didn't have Millie(her sister) and thought, that this might be the last chance to be with someone, than maybe she would agree for that quick a wedding. Or if she didn't have that good a job... Not like that though, I just don't see it. I think this could only happen if Grace herself had some sort of personality disorder or at least a very, very low self esteem.
Issue number 2.:
The constant threats about sending Millie to asylum...what asylum? This isn't Batman and Gotham city, asylums like that don't exist anymore. And since when people with Down Syndrome are held in Psychiatric Hospitals (as that's what they're called!). Not just that, you can't just admit someone to one of them. There are assessments and number of tests done with the patient, which means that only good things could come out that, as Millie would have told doctors what's really happening and the police would be called...simple.
Issue number 3.:
Grace had so many chances to escape, that it's actually funny. She could scream in the restaurant, shout for help, refuse to leave, do something!!
Issue number 4.:
Then there's the ending...
Grace in some miraculous way gets away with murder... In this fantasy world filled with lawyers, psychopaths & wealth, the author didn't think about forensics...hmm, or is it just me?
Even though I can honestly say I've read worse (Husband's secret, Sister's secret etc), this was a very painful and frustrating read...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
5 years after the release of the first Lego Movie, these lovable characters are back with a brand new adventure. I had such a blast with the original so I was interested to see how they’d continue the story.
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
Paytm Mall : Online Shopping
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Paytm Mall is India’s premier online shopping app - brought to you by Paytm, India’s most...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 4, 2019
Thoughts on Joker
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
Cupcakes For All
Food & Drink and Entertainment
App
A collection of 109 brilliant cookery lesson videos on how to make great Ciupcakes Lessons include:...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) in Movies
Jan 13, 2023
Strong Acting aids Character Study
Back in 2008, Writer/Director Martin McDonagh scored an improbable hit with IN BRUGES, a tale of two hitmen “laying low” in…well…Bruges, Belgium while awaiting instructions from their boss. During this down time these two characters muse about the meanings of life and love in a wonderful, Oscar Nominated, character study.
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)