Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Does it live up to the hype?
When it came to choosing a director for Star Wars: the Force Awakens, there really was only one choice: J.J Abrams. He had the difficult task of bringing the beloved Star Trek series back onto the big screen after numerous misfiring movies and did so with two near-perfect films.
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
2013 is the year of the fairy-tale and the year of the witch, or so it looks that way from what seems to be a never-ending bombardment of films related to the two age-old topics. This year sees the release of Bryan Singer’s Jack the Giant Slayer as well as Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great & the Powerful and whilst the latter has opened to mixed reviews, it is Bryan Singer’s effort which really looks like it’ll sparkle.
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Moon Fever (Includes: Primes, #6.5) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This was one of those "I finished the last thing I was reading and I'm bored, what's already loaded on the iTouch?" reads. It was on there because the anthology includes [a:Lori Handeland|17060|Lori Handeland|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1236700197p2/17060.jpg]'s "Cobwebs Over the Moon" (Nightcreatures, #10) and I read all of that series a while back. I didn't care to read the rest of the anthology at the time, but I hadn't gotten around to deleting the book. Ah, happy digital packrat am I!
If I've read anything by [a:Susan Sizemore|88608|Susan Sizemore|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254303347p2/88608.jpg] other than "Tempting Fate" (Primes #6.5), it was eminently forgettable. I'm absolutely sure that I haven't read anything else in her <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41947-primes">Primes</a>; series, because I probably would have thrown said material firmly into the nearest hard surface (or whatever the equivalent is with bytes) because of the insanely annoying number of times Sizemore feels it necessary to remind us that her vampires are Primes! Alpha Primes! They are! Really! And that means they fight a lot! Especially over women! Otherwise, it's a Mary Jane story set in New Orleans. I have a strong feeling that most of the Primes series is Mary Jane-ish, but I may at some point be trapped and forced with the prospect of staring at the inside of my eyeballs or reading more of Sizemore's stuff. I'm not sure which would be worse right now. I'll get back to you on that.
"The Darkness Within" by [a:Maggie Shayne|17064|Maggie Shayne|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1215028948p2/17064.jpg] feels terribly familiar, although I'm sure I haven't read it before. I have, however, read other Shayne novellas in other anthologies, and this story follows a familiar pattern. Sexy gal who doesn't think she's attractive has had a run of hard luck and may lose the house she has bought relatively recently and loves. Said house has a spooky past that she didn't know about when she bought it. Stalwart too-sexy-for-her man gets involved somehow, preferably in a way that allows her to question his motives. They are inexplicably drawn to each other and screw like bunnies (or near as makes no difference), then blame their lapse in judgement on whatever weirdness is going on in the house. (Yep, that's what they all say - and no safer sex anywhere! Does paranormal activity preclude discussion of sexual history and prevent STD transmission?)
"Cobwebs Over the Moon" by [a:Lori Handeland|17060|Lori Handeland|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1236700197p2/17060.jpg] (<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41626-nightcreature">Nightcreatures</a>;, #10) isn't the most logical entry in that series. Neither is it the most illogical - but by the tenth entry, the series' mythology has gotten a bit ridiculous, so I don't know why I even bother bringing up something as irrelevant as logic. Silly me! In every book, we're introduced to a woman who is in some way tangled up with werewolves, then to a man who is tangled up with her and/or the creatures and, of course, whose loyalties are uncertain. There is always an element of danger to add spice to the romance that has to grow between the two. The formula never changes at all. There are always evil werewolves, but sometimes there are also good ones. If you like predictability in your paranormal romance, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41626-nightcreature">Nightcreatures</a>; is a great series for you.
I suppose [a:Caridad Piñeiro|2944621|Caridad Piñeiro|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1305975476p2/2944621.jpg]'s "Crazy for the Cat" isn't technically any better or worse than any of the other three stories. There's more variety in the shapeshifting and the main setting is the Amazon jungle. I couldn't get past the bigotry and colonialism, though. Dark is bad, light is good, of course! Those poor benighted natives couldn't possibly handle a few rogues without that white woman, could they? Spare me.
If I've read anything by [a:Susan Sizemore|88608|Susan Sizemore|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254303347p2/88608.jpg] other than "Tempting Fate" (Primes #6.5), it was eminently forgettable. I'm absolutely sure that I haven't read anything else in her <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41947-primes">Primes</a>; series, because I probably would have thrown said material firmly into the nearest hard surface (or whatever the equivalent is with bytes) because of the insanely annoying number of times Sizemore feels it necessary to remind us that her vampires are Primes! Alpha Primes! They are! Really! And that means they fight a lot! Especially over women! Otherwise, it's a Mary Jane story set in New Orleans. I have a strong feeling that most of the Primes series is Mary Jane-ish, but I may at some point be trapped and forced with the prospect of staring at the inside of my eyeballs or reading more of Sizemore's stuff. I'm not sure which would be worse right now. I'll get back to you on that.
"The Darkness Within" by [a:Maggie Shayne|17064|Maggie Shayne|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1215028948p2/17064.jpg] feels terribly familiar, although I'm sure I haven't read it before. I have, however, read other Shayne novellas in other anthologies, and this story follows a familiar pattern. Sexy gal who doesn't think she's attractive has had a run of hard luck and may lose the house she has bought relatively recently and loves. Said house has a spooky past that she didn't know about when she bought it. Stalwart too-sexy-for-her man gets involved somehow, preferably in a way that allows her to question his motives. They are inexplicably drawn to each other and screw like bunnies (or near as makes no difference), then blame their lapse in judgement on whatever weirdness is going on in the house. (Yep, that's what they all say - and no safer sex anywhere! Does paranormal activity preclude discussion of sexual history and prevent STD transmission?)
"Cobwebs Over the Moon" by [a:Lori Handeland|17060|Lori Handeland|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1236700197p2/17060.jpg] (<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41626-nightcreature">Nightcreatures</a>;, #10) isn't the most logical entry in that series. Neither is it the most illogical - but by the tenth entry, the series' mythology has gotten a bit ridiculous, so I don't know why I even bother bringing up something as irrelevant as logic. Silly me! In every book, we're introduced to a woman who is in some way tangled up with werewolves, then to a man who is tangled up with her and/or the creatures and, of course, whose loyalties are uncertain. There is always an element of danger to add spice to the romance that has to grow between the two. The formula never changes at all. There are always evil werewolves, but sometimes there are also good ones. If you like predictability in your paranormal romance, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/41626-nightcreature">Nightcreatures</a>; is a great series for you.
I suppose [a:Caridad Piñeiro|2944621|Caridad Piñeiro|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1305975476p2/2944621.jpg]'s "Crazy for the Cat" isn't technically any better or worse than any of the other three stories. There's more variety in the shapeshifting and the main setting is the Amazon jungle. I couldn't get past the bigotry and colonialism, though. Dark is bad, light is good, of course! Those poor benighted natives couldn't possibly handle a few rogues without that white woman, could they? Spare me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Dark Tales in Books
Mar 15, 2018
This is a really generous collection of short stories. There are 17 in this book in total, with the longest being only 24 pages (which feels like loads after reading 10 page stories practically all the way through)!
<b><i>The Possibility of Evil - 3 stars</i></b>
I wasn’t all that interested in this short until right at the very end. The last line was fantastically horrible.
<b><i>Louisa, Please Come Home - 3 stars</i></b>
Hm. This one was good but not great. It was sad, more than anything.
<b><i>Paranoia - 5 stars</i></b>
This story was great! It gripped me right from the start and had my heart pounding as Mr Beresford was rushing to get home and away from “light hat”. Fantastically creepy ending too.
<b><i>The Honeymoon of Mrs Smith - 2 stars</i></b>
I liked the prose and everything but I didn’t get it? Probably me just being stupid but… yeah.
<b><i>The Story We Used to Tell - 3 stars</i></b>
There was certainly an eeriness about this story but I didn’t like how it took on a sort of paranormal turn, when the rest of the stories have been based on human nature.
<b><i>The Sorcerer's Apprentice - 2 stars </i></b>
This one was just really dull in comparison to the other ones.
<b><i>Jack the Ripper - 4 stars </i></b>
I liked this one because it was creepy and kind of left you to your own imagination. I love any kind of story that focuses on the Ripper because everyone makes him their own.
<b><i>The Beautiful Stranger - 3 stars </i></b>
If you can’t already tell from my previous mini reviews, I prefer the creepy stories, and this wasn’t that, but it was still an interesting story, just not my favourite.
<b><i>All She Said Was Yes - 4 stars</i></b>
I liked this story because it was a little bit different and the ending has you going “No! No! Don’t do it!”. I like it when a book conjures up that emotion from you.
<b><i>What a Thought - 4 stars</i></b>
Hasn’t just about everyone had a murderous thoughts before? This was a good story because I could relate to some of it. (That all sounds so bad, don’t worry, I’m not planning on ever killing anyone).
<b><i>The Bus - 4 stars</i></b>
I really liked this one! It got super creepy when she arrived at the old house and I loved the twist ending!
<b><i>Family Treasures - 3 stars</i></b>
I enjoyed this one all the way up to then end. Girls are so terribly bitchy, Jackson got the atmosphere in the house perfectly right!
<b><i>A Visit - 3 stars</i></b>
I liked how the mystery built in this story but I didn’t particularly like how to story ended. I also felt that the timings were a little all over the place, which confused me at some parts.
<b><i>The Good Wife - 3 stars</i></b>
I didn’t mind this story but it was very predictable. I was hoping the end wouldn’t be what I was expecting it to be, but alas.
<b><i>The Man in the Woods - 4 stars</i></b>
This story had a bit of a fairy tale feel to it, which made it a lot more enjoyable for me.
<b><i>Home - 4 stars</i></b>
OK, so I know I said earlier in this review that I didn’t like one of the stories taking on a paranormal element, but I liked it in this one! I kind of reminded me of Beetlejuice because of the bridge lol.
<b><i>The Summer People - 4 stars</i></b>
Eep, this one was creepy! I liked the whole creepy local community vibe it had to it and how the Allison’s were no longer welcome… Very good end to this collection of shorts.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b><i>The Possibility of Evil - 3 stars</i></b>
I wasn’t all that interested in this short until right at the very end. The last line was fantastically horrible.
<b><i>Louisa, Please Come Home - 3 stars</i></b>
Hm. This one was good but not great. It was sad, more than anything.
<b><i>Paranoia - 5 stars</i></b>
This story was great! It gripped me right from the start and had my heart pounding as Mr Beresford was rushing to get home and away from “light hat”. Fantastically creepy ending too.
<b><i>The Honeymoon of Mrs Smith - 2 stars</i></b>
I liked the prose and everything but I didn’t get it? Probably me just being stupid but… yeah.
<b><i>The Story We Used to Tell - 3 stars</i></b>
There was certainly an eeriness about this story but I didn’t like how it took on a sort of paranormal turn, when the rest of the stories have been based on human nature.
<b><i>The Sorcerer's Apprentice - 2 stars </i></b>
This one was just really dull in comparison to the other ones.
<b><i>Jack the Ripper - 4 stars </i></b>
I liked this one because it was creepy and kind of left you to your own imagination. I love any kind of story that focuses on the Ripper because everyone makes him their own.
<b><i>The Beautiful Stranger - 3 stars </i></b>
If you can’t already tell from my previous mini reviews, I prefer the creepy stories, and this wasn’t that, but it was still an interesting story, just not my favourite.
<b><i>All She Said Was Yes - 4 stars</i></b>
I liked this story because it was a little bit different and the ending has you going “No! No! Don’t do it!”. I like it when a book conjures up that emotion from you.
<b><i>What a Thought - 4 stars</i></b>
Hasn’t just about everyone had a murderous thoughts before? This was a good story because I could relate to some of it. (That all sounds so bad, don’t worry, I’m not planning on ever killing anyone).
<b><i>The Bus - 4 stars</i></b>
I really liked this one! It got super creepy when she arrived at the old house and I loved the twist ending!
<b><i>Family Treasures - 3 stars</i></b>
I enjoyed this one all the way up to then end. Girls are so terribly bitchy, Jackson got the atmosphere in the house perfectly right!
<b><i>A Visit - 3 stars</i></b>
I liked how the mystery built in this story but I didn’t particularly like how to story ended. I also felt that the timings were a little all over the place, which confused me at some parts.
<b><i>The Good Wife - 3 stars</i></b>
I didn’t mind this story but it was very predictable. I was hoping the end wouldn’t be what I was expecting it to be, but alas.
<b><i>The Man in the Woods - 4 stars</i></b>
This story had a bit of a fairy tale feel to it, which made it a lot more enjoyable for me.
<b><i>Home - 4 stars</i></b>
OK, so I know I said earlier in this review that I didn’t like one of the stories taking on a paranormal element, but I liked it in this one! I kind of reminded me of Beetlejuice because of the bridge lol.
<b><i>The Summer People - 4 stars</i></b>
Eep, this one was creepy! I liked the whole creepy local community vibe it had to it and how the Allison’s were no longer welcome… Very good end to this collection of shorts.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Terror is Our Business in Books
May 30, 2018
Terror is Our Business is the first time I’ve ever read Joe or Kasey Lansdale. I love horror, but by all accounts I’m not nearly as wide read in it as I should be. (At least not when it comes to the more well-known names.) I was a bit nervous about accepting a free copy of the book for review consideration because of that. However, I figured this might give me a taste of Lansdale’s writing to see if I wanted to pursue other works from him.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)