Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
b.Young (97 KP) rated Win (The Atlantis Grail Book 3) in Books
May 21, 2018
Romance (3 more)
Action
The Atlantis Grail Games
Awesome storyline
My favorite in the series so far
Contains spoilers, click to show
I originally downloaded Book 1, Qualify, on my Kindle because it was offered for free. I immediately purchased Book 2 (Compete) and Book 3 (Win) after getting through the third chapter! I knew this was going to be a series to follow because Vera Nazarian's writing has an amazing way of drawing you into the story.
After Qualify, I was completely invested in the fate of Gwen Lark and needed to know what happened, so I continued with Compete. While Compete did not have the same action and urgency as Qualify, it was still an outstanding sequel and made me want to continue the The Atlantis Grail Series.
To be honest, Compete left me right where I wanted to be! Everything I had hoped for Gwen was happening and I had no choice but to continue the story (yes, I am a person who gets emotionally attached to certain fictional characters and therefore live my fantasy life vicariously through them).
Now, on to Win. Oh. My. Lord! Be still my heart, because Aeson has admitted his feelings for Gwen and they are going to get married!!! Yes, regular Earth-girl and winner of an all expense paid trip to Atlantis gets to marry the friggen Crown Prince of Atlantida!!!
Nevermind that Aeson's dad, the Imperator of Atlantida, does not like this one little bit, because what Gwen and Aeson have is real true love and it is so sweet and tender and... I must stop here before I gush all over this review since shit is about to get very real for them (at the hands of the Imperator, of course).
Flashback to that mindnumbing and heartbreaking decision Gwen made in Book 2 to niether become a Civilian or Cadet and instead enter the Atlantis Grail to become a Citizen so she could save her parents and her brother George from the impeding doom of the Asteriod hurtling through space with the purpose of destroying Earth. Well, it just so happens that because she is now the Imperial Bride-to-be, she will be awarded Citizenship when she marries Aeson and thusly inherit the ability to save the rest of her family without having to compete in the horrible and terrifying Atlantis Grail Games. I was literally jumping in my seat and squealing when I learned this!
All that worry and training for the entire year travelling in space to Atlantis was put to a rest and all seemed just hunky-dory. Until....
The Imperial Court Assembly that is held to recognize Gwen as Aeson's choice of Imperial Consort and Bride. Everything goes as planned until the Imperator decides to bestow an unrefusable gift unto Gwen: the "opportunity" to compete in the Atlantis Grail Games. This was such a blow to my heart and I wanted to hold Gwen and tell her it was never going to happen and she could just marry her Prince and have many children and live happily ever after. Alas, that would not have made for a very interesting story, so we must concede to the Imperator's whim and suffer with Aeson as Gwen competes in the stupid Atlantis Grail for her life all because the Imperator is not happy Aeson did not choose Lady Tiri, a proper Atlantean Royal.
Things get intense from this point on as Gwen only has 28 days to train and become a warrior capable of NOT dying in the Games. Thankfully, she has the support of her Bridegroom and the crew of the Astra Diamon to help her with this nearly impossible challenge.
After the 28 days of intense training, it is finally time for Gwen to say her goodbyes and focus on staying alive through all 4 stages of the deadly Grail Games.
During the Games, she is met with unique challenges and ordeals that left me reading into the wee hours of the night to make sure Gwen survived. I seriously could not put this book down I was so worried for Gwen and Aeson.
The Grail Games were more intense and horrible than Katniss Everdeen ever had to endure and although I was confident Gwen would make it through alive, I was unsure just how much of her would make it out at the end.
I cannot wait for Book 4, Survive! I saw an update yesterday from the author mentioning that over 26,000 words had been completed for the book! It cannot come soon enough!
After Qualify, I was completely invested in the fate of Gwen Lark and needed to know what happened, so I continued with Compete. While Compete did not have the same action and urgency as Qualify, it was still an outstanding sequel and made me want to continue the The Atlantis Grail Series.
To be honest, Compete left me right where I wanted to be! Everything I had hoped for Gwen was happening and I had no choice but to continue the story (yes, I am a person who gets emotionally attached to certain fictional characters and therefore live my fantasy life vicariously through them).
Now, on to Win. Oh. My. Lord! Be still my heart, because Aeson has admitted his feelings for Gwen and they are going to get married!!! Yes, regular Earth-girl and winner of an all expense paid trip to Atlantis gets to marry the friggen Crown Prince of Atlantida!!!
Nevermind that Aeson's dad, the Imperator of Atlantida, does not like this one little bit, because what Gwen and Aeson have is real true love and it is so sweet and tender and... I must stop here before I gush all over this review since shit is about to get very real for them (at the hands of the Imperator, of course).
Flashback to that mindnumbing and heartbreaking decision Gwen made in Book 2 to niether become a Civilian or Cadet and instead enter the Atlantis Grail to become a Citizen so she could save her parents and her brother George from the impeding doom of the Asteriod hurtling through space with the purpose of destroying Earth. Well, it just so happens that because she is now the Imperial Bride-to-be, she will be awarded Citizenship when she marries Aeson and thusly inherit the ability to save the rest of her family without having to compete in the horrible and terrifying Atlantis Grail Games. I was literally jumping in my seat and squealing when I learned this!
All that worry and training for the entire year travelling in space to Atlantis was put to a rest and all seemed just hunky-dory. Until....
The Imperial Court Assembly that is held to recognize Gwen as Aeson's choice of Imperial Consort and Bride. Everything goes as planned until the Imperator decides to bestow an unrefusable gift unto Gwen: the "opportunity" to compete in the Atlantis Grail Games. This was such a blow to my heart and I wanted to hold Gwen and tell her it was never going to happen and she could just marry her Prince and have many children and live happily ever after. Alas, that would not have made for a very interesting story, so we must concede to the Imperator's whim and suffer with Aeson as Gwen competes in the stupid Atlantis Grail for her life all because the Imperator is not happy Aeson did not choose Lady Tiri, a proper Atlantean Royal.
Things get intense from this point on as Gwen only has 28 days to train and become a warrior capable of NOT dying in the Games. Thankfully, she has the support of her Bridegroom and the crew of the Astra Diamon to help her with this nearly impossible challenge.
After the 28 days of intense training, it is finally time for Gwen to say her goodbyes and focus on staying alive through all 4 stages of the deadly Grail Games.
During the Games, she is met with unique challenges and ordeals that left me reading into the wee hours of the night to make sure Gwen survived. I seriously could not put this book down I was so worried for Gwen and Aeson.
The Grail Games were more intense and horrible than Katniss Everdeen ever had to endure and although I was confident Gwen would make it through alive, I was unsure just how much of her would make it out at the end.
I cannot wait for Book 4, Survive! I saw an update yesterday from the author mentioning that over 26,000 words had been completed for the book! It cannot come soon enough!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
NOAA Weather Radar.
Weather and Travel
3.0
Rate It
App
Make the most of the real-time animated radar images on a highly responsive interactive map. Severe...
iWatermark+ Batch Watermark
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Essential Batch Watermark & Watermarking App for Professional and Beginning Photographers....
Montessori Preschool
Education and Games
App
Looking for an engaging digital preschool app based on a proven teaching method? Montessori...
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Our Endless Numbered Days in Books
Sep 26, 2018
I don't like unreliable narrators. I didn't realize, at first, that Peggy was one. Even though she mentions at the start of the book that a doctor said she had Korsakoff's syndrome - meaning malnutrition has messed with her memories - I assumed that it was just because her experiences were so unbelievable that the doctor thought she'd made things up. I also don't like unreliable narrators because the author obviously knows what truly happened. Leaving the reader in the dark about it seems rude.
Peggy's narration does seem childlike, often. While at the beginning of the book, that can be excused because she is eight years old, by the end she is seventeen, yet still talking about things with a child's understanding. I thought that was the effect of Korsakoff's syndrome, not that she was entirely making some things up.
In our endless numbered days, Peggy is effectively kidnapped by her father when she is eight, and taken to some place deep in the German forest. She spends the next nine years alone in the forest with him, trapping squirrels, gathering roots and berries, and growing simple crops in a small vegetable patch. He tells her, repeatedly, making her repeat it back to him, that the rest of the world was destroyed in a massive storm. They are the last two people alive in their small, sheltered valley. She doesn't question it until she sees a man in their forest, and that eventually leads her to find civilization again. The book is told in two timelines, flashing back and forth from her memories of her time in the forest, and the present where she's attempting to re-acclimate to London.
I'm not really sure what to believe; Peggy's memory or what her mother thinks happened. There are just enough oddities to make either story plausible. I think I prefer Peggy's version. But that's the trouble with unreliable narrators; there's no way to actually know. I don't like ending a book frustrated. Books should make you feel things, yes, but frustration is an odd emotion to aim for.
This book is odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Peggy's narration does seem childlike, often. While at the beginning of the book, that can be excused because she is eight years old, by the end she is seventeen, yet still talking about things with a child's understanding. I thought that was the effect of Korsakoff's syndrome, not that she was entirely making some things up.
In our endless numbered days, Peggy is effectively kidnapped by her father when she is eight, and taken to some place deep in the German forest. She spends the next nine years alone in the forest with him, trapping squirrels, gathering roots and berries, and growing simple crops in a small vegetable patch. He tells her, repeatedly, making her repeat it back to him, that the rest of the world was destroyed in a massive storm. They are the last two people alive in their small, sheltered valley. She doesn't question it until she sees a man in their forest, and that eventually leads her to find civilization again. The book is told in two timelines, flashing back and forth from her memories of her time in the forest, and the present where she's attempting to re-acclimate to London.
I'm not really sure what to believe; Peggy's memory or what her mother thinks happened. There are just enough oddities to make either story plausible. I think I prefer Peggy's version. But that's the trouble with unreliable narrators; there's no way to actually know. I don't like ending a book frustrated. Books should make you feel things, yes, but frustration is an odd emotion to aim for.
This book is odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
60 Seconds! Atomic Adventure
Games
App
60 Seconds! is a dark comedy atomic adventure of scavenge and survival. Collect supplies and rescue...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hangover Part III (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When “The Hangover” came out in 2009 it did so with modest expectations. Few critics expected it to become a box office smash much less the highest grossing R rated comedy of its time. Naturally a sequel followed and despite mixed reviews, “The Hangover 2” reaped in millions and vaulted over the original in terms of earnings. So, it was no surprise when “The Hangover 3” was announced and that the cast and writer/director Todd Phillips would be back again for the further adventures of The Wolfpack.
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/