Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Looking back I’ve written a number of horror film reviews which, probably highlights what my favourite genre is? I’ve not been into torture porn or serious amounts of gore. I don’t mind it in small doses, but I prefer films that get under your skin – case in point, Session 9.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Airplane! in Apps
Mar 27, 2020
Holds Up Well
Doctor: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Ronnie (304 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 5 in TV
Apr 3, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Supernatural follows 2 brothers, Sam and Dean Winchester, who have been raised by their dad in a lifestyle of moving across country fighting supernatural beings, ever since their mum was killed by a yellow eyed demon in Sam’s nursery when he was only 6months old. At the end of season 4 Sam accidentally frees the devil from his cage in hell, kickstarting the apocalypse and then in season 5 Sam and Dean have to try and stop the apocalypse, but the apocalypse can’t happen without Sam and Dean’s help. Sam’s body is to be the vessel used by the devil, and Dean’s body is to be the vessel of the angel Michael. Once the two angels have gotten Sam and Dean to say “yes” to being the vessels, they are to have a battle, and should the devil win, the apocalypse will begin.
I have very mixed feelings about this season. There were parts of it I loved and parts of it I disliked. The brothers have always had a rocky relationship, but in this season, we see them split up more than once, which I didn’t like, I’ve always enjoyed the two brothers being together. An element of the season that I have very mixed feelings about is the angels. The angel we see the most is Castiel, who has rebelled from heaven and is helping the brothers. He is my favourite character, but that’s where the good parts of the angels stop. The other angel we see frequently throughout the show is Zackariah, who is just annoying. And the third angel, who is only in one episode is Gabriel. He has been in the show multiple times before in earlier seasons, but he was pretending to be a Trickster, and even then, I didn’t like him. Another element I have mixed feelings about is the actual content. The main focus of the season was trying to stop the apocalypse and tracking down the horsemen. In previous seasons a large amount of the episodes were about the brothers’ encounters with supernatural beings that weren’t angels or demons. Two of my favourite episodes were “The End” and “Changing Channels”. In “The End” Dean gets sent five years into the future and in “Changing Channels” Sam and Dean get stuck in Tv shows, or TV Land as they like to call it. Although not obvious at first, these two episodes link back to the angels, which really disappoints me. Something I did like was one of the demons they introduced, called Crowley. He helped the brothers out in a couple of the episodes, and I think he might become a larger part of the show in later seasons. Another thing I liked was that there seemed to be more humour in this season. There has always been bizarre deaths and witty one liners from Dean but there was definitely more humour, which I really enjoyed. Another thing I disliked was the ending. They ended it with Sam in hell and Dean finally having the nice, normal life he always wanted, but you knew that wouldn’t last because there’s 11 more seasons. Overall, I think the season was good, but not hugely enjoyable.
I have very mixed feelings about this season. There were parts of it I loved and parts of it I disliked. The brothers have always had a rocky relationship, but in this season, we see them split up more than once, which I didn’t like, I’ve always enjoyed the two brothers being together. An element of the season that I have very mixed feelings about is the angels. The angel we see the most is Castiel, who has rebelled from heaven and is helping the brothers. He is my favourite character, but that’s where the good parts of the angels stop. The other angel we see frequently throughout the show is Zackariah, who is just annoying. And the third angel, who is only in one episode is Gabriel. He has been in the show multiple times before in earlier seasons, but he was pretending to be a Trickster, and even then, I didn’t like him. Another element I have mixed feelings about is the actual content. The main focus of the season was trying to stop the apocalypse and tracking down the horsemen. In previous seasons a large amount of the episodes were about the brothers’ encounters with supernatural beings that weren’t angels or demons. Two of my favourite episodes were “The End” and “Changing Channels”. In “The End” Dean gets sent five years into the future and in “Changing Channels” Sam and Dean get stuck in Tv shows, or TV Land as they like to call it. Although not obvious at first, these two episodes link back to the angels, which really disappoints me. Something I did like was one of the demons they introduced, called Crowley. He helped the brothers out in a couple of the episodes, and I think he might become a larger part of the show in later seasons. Another thing I liked was that there seemed to be more humour in this season. There has always been bizarre deaths and witty one liners from Dean but there was definitely more humour, which I really enjoyed. Another thing I disliked was the ending. They ended it with Sam in hell and Dean finally having the nice, normal life he always wanted, but you knew that wouldn’t last because there’s 11 more seasons. Overall, I think the season was good, but not hugely enjoyable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lincoln (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The history of this country is steeped in mystery and intrigue, but it’s fuzzy on the details. We cling to heroes of the past because we are jaded by the present. Lincoln, a new film from Steven Spielberg, comes to us at a time when there seems to be even more political strife than usual. (Or perhaps that’s just me getting older and actually paying attention.) Either way, I think this movie’s arrival on the silver screen is very timely, given the recent election.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Tiny Firefighters: Police & Firefighters for Kids
Book and Games
App
Let your kids exploring our world of firefighters and policemen: just tap and watch the scenes...
Man of Steel and Honour: General Stanislaw Maczek: Soldier of Poland, Commander of the 1st Polish Armoured Division in North-West Europe 1944-45
Book
This is a biography of one of the most undervalued commanders of the Second World War, General...
Raw Data
7.0
Rate It
Video Game Watch
Neo-Shinjuku - 2271. The massive and seemingly benevolent Eden Corporation owns the world. The elite...
action multiplayer
FC Porto Fantasy Manager 2017 - Your football club
Games and Sports
App
FC Porto Fantasy Manager 2017 - BE THE BOSS: the new edition of the MOST ADDICTING FOOTBALL mobile...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
