Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Goodnight Mister Tom in Books
Nov 7, 2019
In September 1939, as Britain stands on the brink of the war, many young children from the cities are evacuated tot he countryside to escape an imminent German bombardment. Willie Beech, a boy from Deptford who is physically and emotionally abused by his mother, arrives at the home of Tom Oakley, a widower in his sixties who lives in the village of Little Weirwold. The boy is thinly clad, underfed and covered with painful bruises, and believes he is full of sin, a result of his upbringing by his mother, a domineering, insane, God-fearing widow.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
Motherless Child: The Definitive Biography of Eric Clapton
Book
Timed for release around Clapton's 70th birthday, MOTHERLESS CHILD will be the ultimate celebration...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
You say zombie and I'm sold. No matter how serious they are they're still pretty funny, usually unintentionally. I'm not sure what it says about me when I laugh at someone fighting a zombie to the death/re-death but I can't help it... it's too daft not to!
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Gone with the Wind in Books
Jan 2, 2019
In 1861, Scarlett O'Hara is the belle of Georgia. Young, passionate and full of life. But when war comes, she is faced with hardships that she never even dreamed possible.
"Hardships make or break people."
Follow Scarlett O'Hara and her family through the destruction and despair of the Civil War and the years that followed in Reconstruction. With the old way of life dead and gone, will she wilt away along with many others of her previous status and class? Or will she find the gumption to press on and strive for survival, no matter the cost? Her love for one man blinds her to the truth about herself and those around her. After everything she has been through, will she lose the one thing she desires above all else?
"After all, tomorrow is another day."
**If you are not familiar with this story please be aware of a few minor spoilers**
I have grown up watching Gone With the Wind, but somehow, I never got around to reading the book. I am happy to check this one off of my "Bucket (Reading) List". Very long, (hence my relative blogging silence) but worth every word. Margaret Mitchell's descriptions are so detailed! I could feel the Southern sun upon my skin and could smell the scent of the magnolias growing around Tara. If you have seen the movie you will know that this is not a happy tale. But there are very valuable lessons to be learned. After reading the last page today, I was thinking about what I wanted to say in my review. And I think that what stood out to me the most, is that sometimes we are so blinded by what we think we want, what we have idolized for so long, that we can not see true happiness when it stares us in the face. There have been times in my life that I wanted my life to go in a particular direction, but the Lord changed my course. For a time it was challenging to see the good in the situation. But I would come to the realization that if I had continued down that path, I would have been miserable. Instead, I am exactly where I need to be and am continuing to learn to put my trust in God, knowing that He knows best and that He is guiding my steps. For all of her faults, Scarlett is a woman I can admire. No matter what life threw at her, she would not let herself be beaten. Her determination for survival drove her to extremes. But survive she did.
"Hardships make or break people."
Follow Scarlett O'Hara and her family through the destruction and despair of the Civil War and the years that followed in Reconstruction. With the old way of life dead and gone, will she wilt away along with many others of her previous status and class? Or will she find the gumption to press on and strive for survival, no matter the cost? Her love for one man blinds her to the truth about herself and those around her. After everything she has been through, will she lose the one thing she desires above all else?
"After all, tomorrow is another day."
**If you are not familiar with this story please be aware of a few minor spoilers**
I have grown up watching Gone With the Wind, but somehow, I never got around to reading the book. I am happy to check this one off of my "Bucket (Reading) List". Very long, (hence my relative blogging silence) but worth every word. Margaret Mitchell's descriptions are so detailed! I could feel the Southern sun upon my skin and could smell the scent of the magnolias growing around Tara. If you have seen the movie you will know that this is not a happy tale. But there are very valuable lessons to be learned. After reading the last page today, I was thinking about what I wanted to say in my review. And I think that what stood out to me the most, is that sometimes we are so blinded by what we think we want, what we have idolized for so long, that we can not see true happiness when it stares us in the face. There have been times in my life that I wanted my life to go in a particular direction, but the Lord changed my course. For a time it was challenging to see the good in the situation. But I would come to the realization that if I had continued down that path, I would have been miserable. Instead, I am exactly where I need to be and am continuing to learn to put my trust in God, knowing that He knows best and that He is guiding my steps. For all of her faults, Scarlett is a woman I can admire. No matter what life threw at her, she would not let herself be beaten. Her determination for survival drove her to extremes. But survive she did.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
honingwords (32 KP) rated After Mrs Hamilton in Books
Jul 5, 2018 (Updated Jul 6, 2018)
It’s an absolute masterpiece.
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think After Mrs Hamilton by Clare Ashton is my all time favourite book.
Ever.
In any genre.
Normally when I recommend a book to a friend I’ll drop it into conversation. If I really like it I’ll send you a link to a review and follow up a few days later with a question on how you got on with it.
With this one I bought you your own copy, cos you ain’t getting mine, I opened it at the beginning and thrust it into your hands, I took your phone off the hook AND I rang your boss to tell her you won’t be in tomorrow morning.
Here’s a duvet for you too - you’ll be under it until the end.
Did I say favourite book?
Of all time.
And quite rightly so. It’s an absolute masterpiece.
This was my Book Club’s book of the month and it was suggested to me at a time when I was becoming jaded with the sheer number of books set in America, which I’d been reading up to then. It opened me up to an author I’d never heard of before, who sets her books in England and Wales. One who has come up with an original plot that starts off gently unfolding, before twisting and turning to a most unpredictable ending.
I absolutely devoured it.
I wanted to re-open it immediately the last page closed, but forced myself to wait using the interim to read Clare Ashton’s other books in quick succession. I had to see if the absolute need to re-immerse myself in her addictive, easy to read, rich in description, style would continue to be as strong. Also, I needed a clear period of time in front of me to allow for the fact the characters would take over my life again.
After over ten years of reading lesfic Clare Ashton is now the one I use to compare all other authors. I’m slightly worried that I can’t decide which of her novels is my favourite, but as this is the first one I read, it probably takes pride of place.
I’d say there are five or six characters to pay attention to but Clo is the main one. The plot revolves around her friends and family but, more specifically, it is woven around a web of coincidences. Coincidences about people who each have secrets and who may have known each other in the past, coincidences about where they lived and met, coincidences about how their pasts and futures may be intertwined.
Coincidences which prove just how small the world really is, especially if you ever lived in Middle Heyford.
Clare deals with two taboo subjects. The first is that Clo works for Marella as an escort to women. (“Prostitution. You can call it what it is,” says Clo.) She uses the income to allow her to care for her arthritic grandmother Amelia.
The second taboo subject I will let you find out for yourself, but for the record, I am not squeamish about it and think Clare was extremely brave to include it. I found myself nodding along with Clo’s reaction.
The novel begins with Marella interviewing her new client, Mrs Hamilton. Marella is the lynch pin to everything, yet we learn little about her throughout the book and she isn’t in many scenes. She is vitally important; there would be no story without her, yet Clare manages to allow Marella to stay mainly in the shadows. I would very much like to see future stories with her in them and think it is a huge shame Clare has no plans to visit this storyline again.
Clo knows Laura from university and Susan from living in Middle Heyford. Clo’s grandmother Amelia is the mother of Alice who has a special page all to herself in my imaginary book “People I’d Like To Punch In The Face” and Helen is Susan’s dead Mother’s sister. The intricate relationships between the characters are all explained as you go along but it is difficult to keep them all straight in your head, unless you either pay very good attention, or draw an L Word type chart for them, which is what I ended up doing.
Mrs Hamilton tells us she is fifty-four and throughout the book Clare refers to her, and certainly Mrs Hamilton thinks of herself, as an older woman. Clo meets with her professionally at the beginning and it is their mutual attraction which is explored throughout the rest of the book. There is an age difference there but it is not an issue for either of them.
There is a little part of me which wants to rebel against the idea that fifty-four is old though, and I wonder now that since the publication of the book was in 2012, and Clare is five years closer to Mrs Hamilton’s age now, would she still consider fifty-four year old skin to be ageing and mottled?
On that point, with me coming along five years after publication, I have to say there is nothing in the novel to date it. It is as fresh today as it would have been back then. Five years isn't long enough to notice too much, but I’m going to predict that readers in another twenty years will be saying this novel is ‘timeless.’
By necessity, there are a few back stories to wade through - the two main sets of characters could, possibly, have been dealt with in two books instead of one. At 308 pages this is a fairly long book, at the beginning it flows a tad more slowly than in the later chapters, but I’m sticking with my first impressions on it, and I wouldn’t have wanted Clare to have handled it any other way.
I like all the main characters. Amelia is so important to Clo and I am relieved when she returns home after a trip away and want to hug her! I like Laura, but feel she may be a high maintenance friend! I think Susan and I would be friends in real life. Clo’s father, Edward is a frustrating coward of a man, but is in an important scene with Clo’s lover and I melted a little towards him when she blurts out “I’m in love with your daughter’” and he says “Well I had gathered that.” Other than Clare’s well-written sex scenes this, and the few paragraphs leading up to it, would be my favourite part of the book.
One character has to deal with what I would suggest is a ‘betrayal by omission’ - others, those closest to her, know facts about her but don’t let her in on the secret. When it all comes out she seems able to accept this, after only a very short time adjusting. This isn't something I could have coped with and this is the one thing that made me uncomfortable during the book and the time mulling it over immediately after.
There are three points in this story when I spoke out loud. There was an
Oh!
A
Huh!
And finally an
OH MY GOD!
There is a split at the end - one side gets their happily ever after and the other story is one where we are left with a total absence of a conclusion. It was about a day later before I realised I didn’t know what happened with that story line and had to go back and reread the ending! Yup, there is nothing - we are left to make our own minds up!
Clare has been known to say that she is in denial about her breast obsession, but there are no fewer than 50 times the word ‘breast’ is used in this book and I loved every single one of them! I’m hoping she continues to not have any breast obsession in her future work!
After finishing the book the first time I added a category to help me rate books I am reviewing. I added “Should this be made into a film?” because it was a most definite YES! for After Mrs Hamilton.
The second time round I am about to add another category: Would I cherish a signed copy of this book? Errr YES!
My advice is to read this once. Then, with the knowledge you have at the end, go and read it again. Clare has so many clues and references cleverly placed throughout which you may think are just lovely details at the time, but they are actually very important to being able to fully understand the book.
It’s nearly impossible to sleep until this story is fully unravelled. Read it during a weekend when you have no work to worry about because otherwise you will want to pull a sickie.
Ever.
In any genre.
Normally when I recommend a book to a friend I’ll drop it into conversation. If I really like it I’ll send you a link to a review and follow up a few days later with a question on how you got on with it.
With this one I bought you your own copy, cos you ain’t getting mine, I opened it at the beginning and thrust it into your hands, I took your phone off the hook AND I rang your boss to tell her you won’t be in tomorrow morning.
Here’s a duvet for you too - you’ll be under it until the end.
Did I say favourite book?
Of all time.
And quite rightly so. It’s an absolute masterpiece.
This was my Book Club’s book of the month and it was suggested to me at a time when I was becoming jaded with the sheer number of books set in America, which I’d been reading up to then. It opened me up to an author I’d never heard of before, who sets her books in England and Wales. One who has come up with an original plot that starts off gently unfolding, before twisting and turning to a most unpredictable ending.
I absolutely devoured it.
I wanted to re-open it immediately the last page closed, but forced myself to wait using the interim to read Clare Ashton’s other books in quick succession. I had to see if the absolute need to re-immerse myself in her addictive, easy to read, rich in description, style would continue to be as strong. Also, I needed a clear period of time in front of me to allow for the fact the characters would take over my life again.
After over ten years of reading lesfic Clare Ashton is now the one I use to compare all other authors. I’m slightly worried that I can’t decide which of her novels is my favourite, but as this is the first one I read, it probably takes pride of place.
I’d say there are five or six characters to pay attention to but Clo is the main one. The plot revolves around her friends and family but, more specifically, it is woven around a web of coincidences. Coincidences about people who each have secrets and who may have known each other in the past, coincidences about where they lived and met, coincidences about how their pasts and futures may be intertwined.
Coincidences which prove just how small the world really is, especially if you ever lived in Middle Heyford.
Clare deals with two taboo subjects. The first is that Clo works for Marella as an escort to women. (“Prostitution. You can call it what it is,” says Clo.) She uses the income to allow her to care for her arthritic grandmother Amelia.
The second taboo subject I will let you find out for yourself, but for the record, I am not squeamish about it and think Clare was extremely brave to include it. I found myself nodding along with Clo’s reaction.
The novel begins with Marella interviewing her new client, Mrs Hamilton. Marella is the lynch pin to everything, yet we learn little about her throughout the book and she isn’t in many scenes. She is vitally important; there would be no story without her, yet Clare manages to allow Marella to stay mainly in the shadows. I would very much like to see future stories with her in them and think it is a huge shame Clare has no plans to visit this storyline again.
Clo knows Laura from university and Susan from living in Middle Heyford. Clo’s grandmother Amelia is the mother of Alice who has a special page all to herself in my imaginary book “People I’d Like To Punch In The Face” and Helen is Susan’s dead Mother’s sister. The intricate relationships between the characters are all explained as you go along but it is difficult to keep them all straight in your head, unless you either pay very good attention, or draw an L Word type chart for them, which is what I ended up doing.
Mrs Hamilton tells us she is fifty-four and throughout the book Clare refers to her, and certainly Mrs Hamilton thinks of herself, as an older woman. Clo meets with her professionally at the beginning and it is their mutual attraction which is explored throughout the rest of the book. There is an age difference there but it is not an issue for either of them.
There is a little part of me which wants to rebel against the idea that fifty-four is old though, and I wonder now that since the publication of the book was in 2012, and Clare is five years closer to Mrs Hamilton’s age now, would she still consider fifty-four year old skin to be ageing and mottled?
On that point, with me coming along five years after publication, I have to say there is nothing in the novel to date it. It is as fresh today as it would have been back then. Five years isn't long enough to notice too much, but I’m going to predict that readers in another twenty years will be saying this novel is ‘timeless.’
By necessity, there are a few back stories to wade through - the two main sets of characters could, possibly, have been dealt with in two books instead of one. At 308 pages this is a fairly long book, at the beginning it flows a tad more slowly than in the later chapters, but I’m sticking with my first impressions on it, and I wouldn’t have wanted Clare to have handled it any other way.
I like all the main characters. Amelia is so important to Clo and I am relieved when she returns home after a trip away and want to hug her! I like Laura, but feel she may be a high maintenance friend! I think Susan and I would be friends in real life. Clo’s father, Edward is a frustrating coward of a man, but is in an important scene with Clo’s lover and I melted a little towards him when she blurts out “I’m in love with your daughter’” and he says “Well I had gathered that.” Other than Clare’s well-written sex scenes this, and the few paragraphs leading up to it, would be my favourite part of the book.
One character has to deal with what I would suggest is a ‘betrayal by omission’ - others, those closest to her, know facts about her but don’t let her in on the secret. When it all comes out she seems able to accept this, after only a very short time adjusting. This isn't something I could have coped with and this is the one thing that made me uncomfortable during the book and the time mulling it over immediately after.
There are three points in this story when I spoke out loud. There was an
Oh!
A
Huh!
And finally an
OH MY GOD!
There is a split at the end - one side gets their happily ever after and the other story is one where we are left with a total absence of a conclusion. It was about a day later before I realised I didn’t know what happened with that story line and had to go back and reread the ending! Yup, there is nothing - we are left to make our own minds up!
Clare has been known to say that she is in denial about her breast obsession, but there are no fewer than 50 times the word ‘breast’ is used in this book and I loved every single one of them! I’m hoping she continues to not have any breast obsession in her future work!
After finishing the book the first time I added a category to help me rate books I am reviewing. I added “Should this be made into a film?” because it was a most definite YES! for After Mrs Hamilton.
The second time round I am about to add another category: Would I cherish a signed copy of this book? Errr YES!
My advice is to read this once. Then, with the knowledge you have at the end, go and read it again. Clare has so many clues and references cleverly placed throughout which you may think are just lovely details at the time, but they are actually very important to being able to fully understand the book.
It’s nearly impossible to sleep until this story is fully unravelled. Read it during a weekend when you have no work to worry about because otherwise you will want to pull a sickie.
