Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
What Noise Does A Chainsaw Make?
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre- a classic horror film. Directed by a horror icon and legend- Tobe Hopper.
The Plot- When Sally (Marilyn Burns) hears that her grandfather's grave may have been vandalized, she and her paraplegic brother, Franklin (Paul A. Partain), set out with their friends to investigate. After a detour to their family's old farmhouse, they discover a group of crazed, murderous outcasts living next door. As the group is attacked one by one by the chainsaw-wielding Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen), who wears a mask of human skin, the survivors must do everything they can to escape.
The film was marketed as being based on true events to attract a wider audience and to act as a subtle commentary on the era's political climate; although the character of Leatherface and minor story details were inspired by the crimes of murderer Ed Gein, its plot is largely fictional.
Hooper limited the quantity of onscreen gore in hopes of securing a PG rating, but the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rated it R. The film faced similar difficulties internationally.
It has since gained a reputation as one of the best and most influential horror films. It is credited with originating several elements common in the slasher genre, including the use of power tools as murder weapons, the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure, and the killing of victims. It led to a franchise that continued the story of Leatherface and his family through sequels, prequels, a remake, comic books and video games.
I highly reccordmend this movie.
The Plot- When Sally (Marilyn Burns) hears that her grandfather's grave may have been vandalized, she and her paraplegic brother, Franklin (Paul A. Partain), set out with their friends to investigate. After a detour to their family's old farmhouse, they discover a group of crazed, murderous outcasts living next door. As the group is attacked one by one by the chainsaw-wielding Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen), who wears a mask of human skin, the survivors must do everything they can to escape.
The film was marketed as being based on true events to attract a wider audience and to act as a subtle commentary on the era's political climate; although the character of Leatherface and minor story details were inspired by the crimes of murderer Ed Gein, its plot is largely fictional.
Hooper limited the quantity of onscreen gore in hopes of securing a PG rating, but the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rated it R. The film faced similar difficulties internationally.
It has since gained a reputation as one of the best and most influential horror films. It is credited with originating several elements common in the slasher genre, including the use of power tools as murder weapons, the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure, and the killing of victims. It led to a franchise that continued the story of Leatherface and his family through sequels, prequels, a remake, comic books and video games.
I highly reccordmend this movie.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Late Night (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Late Night is a well-written comedy about a non-white female hired to add diversity to the writing staff of a late night talk show. Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson showing the comic skills developed during her university days as Hugh Laurie's girlfriend) is a older sophisticated woman who hosts a show whose audience is dying off, literally in some cases and figuratively. If things do not improve, she will no longer be host of her eponymous talk show. So, in an unexpected but obvious hiring decision, Molly Patel is hired to join the writing staff. At first, seen as an interloper with little comedy or writing experience, Molly uses her Mindy Kaling charm to win over her co-workers and her boss. As Katherine starts to see a way to take advantage of her uniqueness and the youth of Molly, she challenges the status quo of late night.
The movie is charming. The characters are developed and not cardboard cutouts of caricatures thanks to the writing, Max Casella, Reid Scott, Denis O'Hare, Hugh Dancy, Amy Ryan, and John Lithgow have backstories and motivations. However, the movie never really goes after the boys' club landscape that late night television inhabits nor does it go after the concept of diversity hires. It simply turns Molly into some sprite who sprinkles enthusiasm into the mundane lives of the people she encounters. Late Night also begins the campaign for John Lithgow as this year's Best Supporting Actor, Not for this role as the mentor for Molly's transformation to strong woman and devoted husband of Katherine who learns the meaning of karma, but for his role later this year as Roger Ailes.
The movie is charming. The characters are developed and not cardboard cutouts of caricatures thanks to the writing, Max Casella, Reid Scott, Denis O'Hare, Hugh Dancy, Amy Ryan, and John Lithgow have backstories and motivations. However, the movie never really goes after the boys' club landscape that late night television inhabits nor does it go after the concept of diversity hires. It simply turns Molly into some sprite who sprinkles enthusiasm into the mundane lives of the people she encounters. Late Night also begins the campaign for John Lithgow as this year's Best Supporting Actor, Not for this role as the mentor for Molly's transformation to strong woman and devoted husband of Katherine who learns the meaning of karma, but for his role later this year as Roger Ailes.
Type:Rider
Games and Entertainment
App
"An intricately-designed masterpiece that constantly throws fresh challenges and situations at you...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Frame-Up (The Golden Arrow Mysteries Book 1) in Books
Apr 16, 2020
Great idea but could've been executed better
When I first saw the synopsis of this book, I thought it sounded great - superheroes, geeks and comic books is right up my street. However what is a great idea for a story isn't executed very well.
My main problem is the character of MG herself. A female geek character is a great idea, but my issue is that I found MG very unlikeable. Her attitude and actions started off fairly well, but by the end I found myself getting so irritated by her inability to listen to other people and her stubborn and rash attitude. The romance aspect of this novel doesnt help matters - it sounds like every geeks dream and so farfetched and ridiculous it's laughable. This could not be any more predictable and cliched than it already is. Matteo as a character too seems fairly undeveloped and comes across as a rather one dimensional love interest.
This is a shame as the idea behind the story is quite interesting and rather fun to read. There's also some very decent minor characters like Lawrence who are a lot more intriguing and fun that should've been featured more. I also loved the references to geek and pop culture, and overall this aspect of the book was a lot of fun. I did find the lack of resolution in some parts of the story frustrating - your typical sequel baiting. I do have the sequel to read which I probably will read as I enjoyed this book enough, but I pray for a resolution as I doubt this series will hold my attention enough longer than that.
My main problem is the character of MG herself. A female geek character is a great idea, but my issue is that I found MG very unlikeable. Her attitude and actions started off fairly well, but by the end I found myself getting so irritated by her inability to listen to other people and her stubborn and rash attitude. The romance aspect of this novel doesnt help matters - it sounds like every geeks dream and so farfetched and ridiculous it's laughable. This could not be any more predictable and cliched than it already is. Matteo as a character too seems fairly undeveloped and comes across as a rather one dimensional love interest.
This is a shame as the idea behind the story is quite interesting and rather fun to read. There's also some very decent minor characters like Lawrence who are a lot more intriguing and fun that should've been featured more. I also loved the references to geek and pop culture, and overall this aspect of the book was a lot of fun. I did find the lack of resolution in some parts of the story frustrating - your typical sequel baiting. I do have the sequel to read which I probably will read as I enjoyed this book enough, but I pray for a resolution as I doubt this series will hold my attention enough longer than that.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Arrow in TV
May 13, 2018
Closer to the comics than people think (5 more)
Great cast
Intriguing characters
Brilliant character development
Great drama
Great references to the comics
Some characters become annoying (1 more)
Not all seasons are consistent with quality
You Have (not) failed this series!
First of all I should tell you that Green Arrow is my all time favourite comic character so this review might have some bias but I'll keep it to a minimum because I am not blinded by this shows faults of which it's had quite a few.
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Dec 10, 2017
The casting of Gal Gadot (1 more)
The correct spirit and mood for the film/character
Finally seeing Wonder Woman for the first time, I am torn between joining the film's praise bandwagon and complaining about another stupid villain. While I certainly don't want to go back to the cheesy Bane, Poisin Ivy, Mr. Freeze days of old, I also am not a big fan of the generic CGI villain, in this case Ares, God of War. I would think they could come up with a happy medium using The Dark Knight as a basis for a complex, grounded human character.
As for Wonder Woman herself, I thought Gal Gadot was amazing in personality, spirit, and the physical embodiment of Wonder Woman as a modern, yet retro female superhero.
Unfortunately, the film's historical setting and perspective has already been done better in the first Captain America film, but had to be the way they did it to make it close to the comic book origin of the character. The scene where Wonder Woman emerges on the battlefield was very strong as you, the viewer, had been anticipating this moment throughout the first half of the film.
The use of CGI during some of the fight scenes with the Nazi soldiers was poor and looked very false. Even when she jumped great distances, I thought that looked fake and was more believable in a Hulk film or even the Wonder Woman TV series from the 1970s.
I also sorely missed an appearance by the original Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter. They have said they will have her in the next film. They had better. 😊
Overall, I enjoyed the film more than most recent superhero flicks, but in 10 years, won't all these films just start to run together?
As for Wonder Woman herself, I thought Gal Gadot was amazing in personality, spirit, and the physical embodiment of Wonder Woman as a modern, yet retro female superhero.
Unfortunately, the film's historical setting and perspective has already been done better in the first Captain America film, but had to be the way they did it to make it close to the comic book origin of the character. The scene where Wonder Woman emerges on the battlefield was very strong as you, the viewer, had been anticipating this moment throughout the first half of the film.
The use of CGI during some of the fight scenes with the Nazi soldiers was poor and looked very false. Even when she jumped great distances, I thought that looked fake and was more believable in a Hulk film or even the Wonder Woman TV series from the 1970s.
I also sorely missed an appearance by the original Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter. They have said they will have her in the next film. They had better. 😊
Overall, I enjoyed the film more than most recent superhero flicks, but in 10 years, won't all these films just start to run together?
Jamie (131 KP) rated Uzumaki (3-in-1, Deluxe Edition): Includes Vols. 1, 2 & 3: Vols. 1, 2 & 3 in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Nightmare fuel in it’s purest form
Spirals exist everywhere in nature: in the shells of snails, the petals of a flower, the swirling clouds of a hurricane, even the shape of whole galaxies. Why this shape continues to show up over and over again in nature is still a bit of a mystery. For the most part spirals are viewed as aesthetically pleasing, appealing to humanity throughout the centuries.
What makes Uzumaki so brilliant is that it takes something so abstract and transforms it into pure nightmare fuel, utterly corrupting one of nature's most beautiful shapes: the spiral. When I had first started reading this comic I was skeptical, how could a geometic shape be scary? There is nothing inherently sinister about a shape, just as there is nothing all that unusual about the town.
Uzumaki challenged my perception of horror in it’s twisting narrative, starting slow as the madness began to spread, spiraling out like a flower in bloom. As the story reached a fever pitch, it quickly descends, like a whirlpool sucking everything underneath it’s surface. Pure genius.
The art is also a wonder in itself, with extremely detailed drawings depicting some of the best examples of body horror that I’ve ever seen. While this is of course up for debate, many fans and critics have chosen Uzumaki as Ito’s magnum opus, and after reading a couple of his other comics I would have to agree. Uzumaki is one of the best works of horror I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. I highly recommend this for any fan of horror, but especially for fans of the works of H.P. Lovecraft, whose books greatly influenced Ito in his creation of the series.
What makes Uzumaki so brilliant is that it takes something so abstract and transforms it into pure nightmare fuel, utterly corrupting one of nature's most beautiful shapes: the spiral. When I had first started reading this comic I was skeptical, how could a geometic shape be scary? There is nothing inherently sinister about a shape, just as there is nothing all that unusual about the town.
Uzumaki challenged my perception of horror in it’s twisting narrative, starting slow as the madness began to spread, spiraling out like a flower in bloom. As the story reached a fever pitch, it quickly descends, like a whirlpool sucking everything underneath it’s surface. Pure genius.
The art is also a wonder in itself, with extremely detailed drawings depicting some of the best examples of body horror that I’ve ever seen. While this is of course up for debate, many fans and critics have chosen Uzumaki as Ito’s magnum opus, and after reading a couple of his other comics I would have to agree. Uzumaki is one of the best works of horror I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. I highly recommend this for any fan of horror, but especially for fans of the works of H.P. Lovecraft, whose books greatly influenced Ito in his creation of the series.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Volume 3 in Books
May 25, 2018
I had a lot of fun with this book.
Contains spoilers, click to show
*DOES contain at least ONE spoiler*
This book was pretty decent. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hadn't already watched the series or read the original comic books simply because the three different stories are written by different people, and they wrote these stories with different time periods in mind.
For instance, the first story is meant to take place near the beginning of the series when Buffy and Angel are still in that "honeymoon" phase of their relationship. Then, when the second story opens, Buffy and Angel are mortal enemies and Buffy is trying to consider how exactly she's going to bring herself to kill him. In the third story, Buffy and Angel are all snuggly again.
So, if someone who had never watched the series simply picked this book up on a whim to read it, I think they would find it very hard and confusing to read. But the storylines were good, and the characterization of the characters was great. I could just hear some of the lines coming from the mouths of Sarah Michelle Geller and David Boreanaz.
Individually, the second story was probably the best. It had an entirely original storyline (within the framework of the overall series, that is) that was just really involved and really well-done. I really loved that one. The first one was good, as well. I was less fond of the third and final story because parts of it were very similar to other Buffy episodes/comics already available AND because some of thing things that happened (like Angel actually deciding to kill Willow to save Buffy) just were NOT realistic. Of the three, the last one was definitely the weakest.
However, the anthology was still a nice addition to anyone who loves Buffy.
This book was pretty decent. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hadn't already watched the series or read the original comic books simply because the three different stories are written by different people, and they wrote these stories with different time periods in mind.
For instance, the first story is meant to take place near the beginning of the series when Buffy and Angel are still in that "honeymoon" phase of their relationship. Then, when the second story opens, Buffy and Angel are mortal enemies and Buffy is trying to consider how exactly she's going to bring herself to kill him. In the third story, Buffy and Angel are all snuggly again.
So, if someone who had never watched the series simply picked this book up on a whim to read it, I think they would find it very hard and confusing to read. But the storylines were good, and the characterization of the characters was great. I could just hear some of the lines coming from the mouths of Sarah Michelle Geller and David Boreanaz.
Individually, the second story was probably the best. It had an entirely original storyline (within the framework of the overall series, that is) that was just really involved and really well-done. I really loved that one. The first one was good, as well. I was less fond of the third and final story because parts of it were very similar to other Buffy episodes/comics already available AND because some of thing things that happened (like Angel actually deciding to kill Willow to save Buffy) just were NOT realistic. Of the three, the last one was definitely the weakest.
However, the anthology was still a nice addition to anyone who loves Buffy.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Feb 23, 2019
Could’ve been so much better
Right from the start, this film is an absolute mess. It’s so garish and in your face, and not in a good way. It’s never good when the opening scene makes you turn your nose up in dislike, and sadly the rest of the film never manages to get past this.
The main problem is the villains. Yes this is based on a comic book, but is that an excuse for having such vile looking and plain bad villains. They are all horrendously bad characters and beyond irritating, although the worst is by far the boss villain played by Matt Lucas. I do like Matt Lucas, but I’ve come to realise he’s only good when he’s playing silly sketch characters. Which is what he’s doing here, but it’s out of place and far too cheesy. He doesn’t make for a menacing villain and although he’s laughable, it’s not in the way intended.
Mads Mikkelsen is the only real reason that this film is watchable. Every time he’s on screen the film becomes as enjoyable as it can be. It’s a shame really as there is potential buried in this - the plot as a whole isn’t bad, and I like a lot of the fight scenes that Duncan is in and the gory bits too. It’s just a pity they made it so damn garish and cheesy. If they’d have tried to make it a little darker, maybe a little like Sin City or something, it could actually have been quite good and have lived up to all of Mads Mikkelsens scenes.
Unless you’re desperate, I wouldn’t recommend watching this. And if you’re a Mads Mikkelsen fan, you’d be better off choosing one of his better offerings than this!
The main problem is the villains. Yes this is based on a comic book, but is that an excuse for having such vile looking and plain bad villains. They are all horrendously bad characters and beyond irritating, although the worst is by far the boss villain played by Matt Lucas. I do like Matt Lucas, but I’ve come to realise he’s only good when he’s playing silly sketch characters. Which is what he’s doing here, but it’s out of place and far too cheesy. He doesn’t make for a menacing villain and although he’s laughable, it’s not in the way intended.
Mads Mikkelsen is the only real reason that this film is watchable. Every time he’s on screen the film becomes as enjoyable as it can be. It’s a shame really as there is potential buried in this - the plot as a whole isn’t bad, and I like a lot of the fight scenes that Duncan is in and the gory bits too. It’s just a pity they made it so damn garish and cheesy. If they’d have tried to make it a little darker, maybe a little like Sin City or something, it could actually have been quite good and have lived up to all of Mads Mikkelsens scenes.
Unless you’re desperate, I wouldn’t recommend watching this. And if you’re a Mads Mikkelsen fan, you’d be better off choosing one of his better offerings than this!