Search
Search results
Guerrilla Bob HD
Games and Entertainment
App
Play CO-OP Multiplayer on the same iPad, or connect your device to any other iPhone, iPod touch or...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Jigsaw (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
10 Years after the events in saw 7 (the Final chapter/Saw 3D) a new 'game' has started and a new group of police officers have to try to find out what is happening and who is responsible.
Jigsaw runs to almost the same formula as the previous films , there is a game in progress and the police have to stop it but as well as the game there is still enough of a story to make the film interesting. The biggest difference is that there isn't really the back story in the same way the other films had mainly because, with the exception of John Kramer (the original Jigsaw), we have all new characters. Instead Jigsaw focuses on finding out who the new Jigsaw is or even if it is a new Jigsaw or if John has some how come back from the dead. This is where the film is cleaver, it gives us a number of possible suspects and even makes it seem it may be John.
Jigsaw doesn't seem to be as gory as the previous films, yes you still have people in a game and yes at least some of them loose but there are no intestines littering the ground or close ups on people getting cut in half. Don't get me wrong there is still gore, closeups of the dead bodies and people loosing limbs but it doesn't quite have the same feel to it.
The story aspect to the film is good , as I said, it does leave you guessing to who the killer is although, if you pay attention there are clues. The film also plays with time a bit and, as in the other films, this is used to throw the viewer off track.
Jigsaw is a good entry in to the Saw franchise, as it has a ten year gap from Saw 7 it doesn't get bogged down with the original charters and doesn't get (too) bogged down with the past timeline which was getting a bit muddled (in my opinion) but it does manage to pull from what has gone before and use it further the story.
And that's it, the end of the Saw franchise. OK not quite, at the time of writing 'Spiral, Chapters from the book of Saw' is due out at the cinema (Corona willing) in a couple of weeks and it looks to bigger and better however I probably won't get to see it for a while so, for now, it's time to move onto something new.
Jigsaw runs to almost the same formula as the previous films , there is a game in progress and the police have to stop it but as well as the game there is still enough of a story to make the film interesting. The biggest difference is that there isn't really the back story in the same way the other films had mainly because, with the exception of John Kramer (the original Jigsaw), we have all new characters. Instead Jigsaw focuses on finding out who the new Jigsaw is or even if it is a new Jigsaw or if John has some how come back from the dead. This is where the film is cleaver, it gives us a number of possible suspects and even makes it seem it may be John.
Jigsaw doesn't seem to be as gory as the previous films, yes you still have people in a game and yes at least some of them loose but there are no intestines littering the ground or close ups on people getting cut in half. Don't get me wrong there is still gore, closeups of the dead bodies and people loosing limbs but it doesn't quite have the same feel to it.
The story aspect to the film is good , as I said, it does leave you guessing to who the killer is although, if you pay attention there are clues. The film also plays with time a bit and, as in the other films, this is used to throw the viewer off track.
Jigsaw is a good entry in to the Saw franchise, as it has a ten year gap from Saw 7 it doesn't get bogged down with the original charters and doesn't get (too) bogged down with the past timeline which was getting a bit muddled (in my opinion) but it does manage to pull from what has gone before and use it further the story.
And that's it, the end of the Saw franchise. OK not quite, at the time of writing 'Spiral, Chapters from the book of Saw' is due out at the cinema (Corona willing) in a couple of weeks and it looks to bigger and better however I probably won't get to see it for a while so, for now, it's time to move onto something new.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Dawn of the Dead (1978) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
Dawn of the Dead is considered by many to be the cream of the crop when it comes to zombie movies.
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a starting note, please please please watch this film with the audio set to Polish with subtitles. Netflix started playing the dubbed version for me, and I managed about 30 seconds worth of cheesy American voice over before I couldn't stand it any longer. It's 100% more natural the way it was intended.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
The Abyssal Plain: The R'lyeh Cycle
1.0
Rate It
Book
With The Abyssal Plain, Holloway and Talley have managed to transform the Cthulhu Mythos into...
Necole (36 KP) rated The Patient in Books
Nov 24, 2021
Asylum Fright
November 20, 2021
I just got done reading The Patient by Jasper Dewitt and was not expecting to get sucked into a one morning read-a-thon. I think I read it in maybe 2 ½ hours. With that being said, I gave this book a 3-star review, although it should be a 3 ½-star review. I will start with the good and end with the bad.
A young, overconfident psychiatrist gets a new job at a mental asylum and chronicles his attempts to treat a profoundly disturbed patient who has been in the hospital since early childhood through a series of online posts. Each chapter is a new day and a new post that Parker has shared with the readers. This manuscript writing style was a unique way to give us Parker’s perspective and account of what occurred with patient “Joe”. I also enjoyed the transcripts and the audio tapes added into the chapters. These few thing added more layers to the story, sucked you in deeper, and gave an unexpecting twist to the book. It was like you were really reading a true account from whom it occurred to.
After reading all the hype and the synopsis of the book, I was hooked and reeled in. A psychiatrist, a mental patient, an asylum set in my home state of Connecticut, strange occurrences to those who have treated patient “Joe”, misdiagnosis’, undiagnosis’, a 30 plus year mystery … The Patient seemed to have it all!!! Even dark, creepy, supernatural horror!!! A perfectly blended cocktail of psychological thriller and supernatural horror.
Unfortunately, it fell flat for me. I kept anticipating more twists, turns, gore and scare. I wanted this book to haunt me well after I finished. The ending felt rushed and not well thought out, I felt like I was cheated out of being scared out of my mind. There was enough horror, suspense, thrills and mystery to keep me reading but after completing The Patient, I just felt let down. I feel like even as the story unfolds, Jasper could have gotten more in depth with the creepy and horror factor but instead it was almost basic. I tried to let my imagination scare with the images the author tries to put in your mind but again I was disappointed.
If you want a quick read that will scare you a little but will keep the suspense up, then pick this up because one person’s opinion is not another’s and who knows, you might scare more easily than me.
I just got done reading The Patient by Jasper Dewitt and was not expecting to get sucked into a one morning read-a-thon. I think I read it in maybe 2 ½ hours. With that being said, I gave this book a 3-star review, although it should be a 3 ½-star review. I will start with the good and end with the bad.
A young, overconfident psychiatrist gets a new job at a mental asylum and chronicles his attempts to treat a profoundly disturbed patient who has been in the hospital since early childhood through a series of online posts. Each chapter is a new day and a new post that Parker has shared with the readers. This manuscript writing style was a unique way to give us Parker’s perspective and account of what occurred with patient “Joe”. I also enjoyed the transcripts and the audio tapes added into the chapters. These few thing added more layers to the story, sucked you in deeper, and gave an unexpecting twist to the book. It was like you were really reading a true account from whom it occurred to.
After reading all the hype and the synopsis of the book, I was hooked and reeled in. A psychiatrist, a mental patient, an asylum set in my home state of Connecticut, strange occurrences to those who have treated patient “Joe”, misdiagnosis’, undiagnosis’, a 30 plus year mystery … The Patient seemed to have it all!!! Even dark, creepy, supernatural horror!!! A perfectly blended cocktail of psychological thriller and supernatural horror.
Unfortunately, it fell flat for me. I kept anticipating more twists, turns, gore and scare. I wanted this book to haunt me well after I finished. The ending felt rushed and not well thought out, I felt like I was cheated out of being scared out of my mind. There was enough horror, suspense, thrills and mystery to keep me reading but after completing The Patient, I just felt let down. I feel like even as the story unfolds, Jasper could have gotten more in depth with the creepy and horror factor but instead it was almost basic. I tried to let my imagination scare with the images the author tries to put in your mind but again I was disappointed.
If you want a quick read that will scare you a little but will keep the suspense up, then pick this up because one person’s opinion is not another’s and who knows, you might scare more easily than me.
Roxanne (13 KP) rated The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1) in Books
Nov 14, 2018
___ <b>3 Star Rating</b> ___
I just had to read this one as I fell in love with the front cover, it looked great so I expected a great story.
I had a love/hate relationship with this book, there were bits that were so good I wanted to shout from the rooftops but there were also parts that were so bad I wanted to run to a dark corner and cry.
<u>The bits I loved</u>
1. The suspense - Oh my life and soul I thought my heart was going to give out! That tension was fantastic! The way the author wrote the action scenes were great, the extra long description filled build ups which make you sweat and then straight into the action. The action was always really good with a nice bit of gore and clever tactics...very well done!
2. The dog - You have to have a dog in there somewhere, I love dogs! If the dog survives then that's extra points from me, I just want the animals to be ok...f*ck anyone else!
3. The Unconsecrated - Very well described, I liked the idea of 'The Fast One' and yeah I know they're Zombies...but I like Zombies.
<u>The bits I hated</u>
1. Mary! Mary! Aaaaand...Mary! - Oh what a pain in the ass! I did not like the MC one little bit. She was incredibly selfish, self centred and just plain rude. She was willing to step on anybody to get her own way. Everything was...love, love, love, OMG Mary I love you!
Mary: *Like I give a shit! I just wanna go to the Beach!*
People whom she supposedly loved were dropping like flies around her but oh well that's one less person in the way of her ocean filled dreams.
I'm sorry but I just hoped for this...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/TJ9LVsr.jpg"; width="300" height="210"/>
2. Lack of character development - Actually, there was none. I still know nothing about the other characters, it's like they were just there to show how 'amazing' Mary really was. I so wanted at least one of the other characters to take centre stage for a while, just so I could see things from a different perspective...but no.
3. Lack of story building - So...why? When? Who? What? Did they live? Die? How did the dog get across the rope the second time?
Why the gates? The fences? Why are there Unconsecrated? What is the Sisterhood all about? What are they hiding? How did this all happen? WTF is Mary's problem?
Ok...so I know there's a second book and I've heard that it doesn't even carry the story on, if that is true I think I'm gonna scream. So many questions!
I just had to read this one as I fell in love with the front cover, it looked great so I expected a great story.
I had a love/hate relationship with this book, there were bits that were so good I wanted to shout from the rooftops but there were also parts that were so bad I wanted to run to a dark corner and cry.
<u>The bits I loved</u>
1. The suspense - Oh my life and soul I thought my heart was going to give out! That tension was fantastic! The way the author wrote the action scenes were great, the extra long description filled build ups which make you sweat and then straight into the action. The action was always really good with a nice bit of gore and clever tactics...very well done!
2. The dog - You have to have a dog in there somewhere, I love dogs! If the dog survives then that's extra points from me, I just want the animals to be ok...f*ck anyone else!
3. The Unconsecrated - Very well described, I liked the idea of 'The Fast One' and yeah I know they're Zombies...but I like Zombies.
<u>The bits I hated</u>
1. Mary! Mary! Aaaaand...Mary! - Oh what a pain in the ass! I did not like the MC one little bit. She was incredibly selfish, self centred and just plain rude. She was willing to step on anybody to get her own way. Everything was...love, love, love, OMG Mary I love you!
Mary: *Like I give a shit! I just wanna go to the Beach!*
People whom she supposedly loved were dropping like flies around her but oh well that's one less person in the way of her ocean filled dreams.
I'm sorry but I just hoped for this...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/TJ9LVsr.jpg"; width="300" height="210"/>
2. Lack of character development - Actually, there was none. I still know nothing about the other characters, it's like they were just there to show how 'amazing' Mary really was. I so wanted at least one of the other characters to take centre stage for a while, just so I could see things from a different perspective...but no.
3. Lack of story building - So...why? When? Who? What? Did they live? Die? How did the dog get across the rope the second time?
Why the gates? The fences? Why are there Unconsecrated? What is the Sisterhood all about? What are they hiding? How did this all happen? WTF is Mary's problem?
Ok...so I know there's a second book and I've heard that it doesn't even carry the story on, if that is true I think I'm gonna scream. So many questions!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Lion (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Upon discovering this short film, I was impressed with how well it had performed. During its first year of distribution, it has won 126 awards at a variety of film festivals which is quite the selling point. Walking in to the film, I didn’t know much about it but the air of mystery made my viewing experience even better. The film is set in an isolated cabin, on a snowy night, which creates the perfect backdrop for a horror tale…
From the very first scene you can tell this cabin is not a happy place to be. Straight away we’re created with sounds of domestic violence, making the viewer feel instantly uncomfortable. The father in the film is repulsive and lives in a squalor, with cigarette butts, leftover pizza and empty cans of beer dotted everywhere. Michael Segal really brought this character to life, showing us that not all villains are supernatural or machete wielding psychopaths. Some evil can be found in the average home, behind closed doors, where violence takes over. Sometimes humans can be more terrifying than anything else.
The way Lion deals with domestic violence, particularly against children, was done incredibly well. It’s not an easy topic to cover but this short makes an impact without going too far and making it gratuitous. Part of what makes this film so good is what you don’t see on screen, and how your imagination runs wild. It has a slow burning narrative that builds up the suspense and finally unleashes the climactic moment with only a few minutes to spare, providing closure and satisfaction for the spectator.
I really liked the use of special effects throughout the film, because they blended in nicely with the rest of the scene and weren’t overdone at any point. Cinematically it hits all the right notes for a horror film through it’s use of low-lighting, tense creeping moments, and an excellent use of music. Jump scares and gore weren’t needed in Lion, because it manages to deliver real horror in a much more subtler, but effective way. The presence of the lion throughout was a good motif to use as well, as they’re synonymous with courage and being a fighter. You’ll see what I mean when you watch it.
Lion is an incredibly important short film that I believe is a must watch, even for those who don’t tend to reach for horrors. The final card at the end reiterates the important message that is present throughout the film, and it really resonated with me. It’s a film with fantasy elements, yet still deep rooted within reality that it makes you want to stand up and take action in any way you can.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/lion-short/
From the very first scene you can tell this cabin is not a happy place to be. Straight away we’re created with sounds of domestic violence, making the viewer feel instantly uncomfortable. The father in the film is repulsive and lives in a squalor, with cigarette butts, leftover pizza and empty cans of beer dotted everywhere. Michael Segal really brought this character to life, showing us that not all villains are supernatural or machete wielding psychopaths. Some evil can be found in the average home, behind closed doors, where violence takes over. Sometimes humans can be more terrifying than anything else.
The way Lion deals with domestic violence, particularly against children, was done incredibly well. It’s not an easy topic to cover but this short makes an impact without going too far and making it gratuitous. Part of what makes this film so good is what you don’t see on screen, and how your imagination runs wild. It has a slow burning narrative that builds up the suspense and finally unleashes the climactic moment with only a few minutes to spare, providing closure and satisfaction for the spectator.
I really liked the use of special effects throughout the film, because they blended in nicely with the rest of the scene and weren’t overdone at any point. Cinematically it hits all the right notes for a horror film through it’s use of low-lighting, tense creeping moments, and an excellent use of music. Jump scares and gore weren’t needed in Lion, because it manages to deliver real horror in a much more subtler, but effective way. The presence of the lion throughout was a good motif to use as well, as they’re synonymous with courage and being a fighter. You’ll see what I mean when you watch it.
Lion is an incredibly important short film that I believe is a must watch, even for those who don’t tend to reach for horrors. The final card at the end reiterates the important message that is present throughout the film, and it really resonated with me. It’s a film with fantasy elements, yet still deep rooted within reality that it makes you want to stand up and take action in any way you can.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/lion-short/
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Wolf Blood in Books
Jan 31, 2019
Wolf Blood is a fresh, new take on the apocalypse–free of zombies and nuclear fallout. It’s a welcome breath of fresh air in a market that’s already overly saturated with the same tropes, and for that Steve Morris deserves props. That’s not to say that there aren’t issues with Wolf Blood. There are several, actually. It does, however, mean that this is a title worth taking the time to read if you’re sick of the same washed up material.
Professor Wiseman and his three students, Samuel, Leann, and Adam, have tucked themselves away in the Carpathians after a poorly received publication foretelling of a werewolf apocalypse is met with widespread mockery and criticism. His reputation ruined, the Professor and his students continue their research in quiet solitude–until things go wrong. All three students become infected, soon returning to London to bring back the superiority of wolves.
Let’s be honest, this idea is pretty interesting and in execution, Morris does a pretty decent job. I didn’t find any outwardly obvious plot holes, and that’s a plus too. The book is fast-paced, making for an easy and quick read. It isn’t bogged down with too much exposition, either. In fact, it might not have enough in some cases. Fortunately, it doesn’t detract too much from what’s going on.
Also, characters. There are too many characters whose purpose isn’t revealed in this book. Granted it’s the first of a series and they probably have a reason to exist later on down the road, but ultimately I feel it would have been better if those characters were introduced later. Instead we end up with a handful of people we don’t care about, and not enough time to develop feelings for those we do meet.
Morris’s werewolves are an important topic of discussion too. They are somewhere in-between the romanticized version and the truly monstrous. As a fan of gore and horror, I was hoping for purely the latter–especially since it is an apocalypse book. While there is some sappiness to this crew of mangy mutts, much of their desires lean toward the more primal nature of a wolf.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; I devoured it in just over twenty-four hours and, considering all that’s going on in my life, that’s a good thing. Rating wise, I’m stuck between three and four. Considering how much fun I had reading it, I’ve decided to lean toward the higher rating. This is definitely a fun book.
I would like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
Professor Wiseman and his three students, Samuel, Leann, and Adam, have tucked themselves away in the Carpathians after a poorly received publication foretelling of a werewolf apocalypse is met with widespread mockery and criticism. His reputation ruined, the Professor and his students continue their research in quiet solitude–until things go wrong. All three students become infected, soon returning to London to bring back the superiority of wolves.
Let’s be honest, this idea is pretty interesting and in execution, Morris does a pretty decent job. I didn’t find any outwardly obvious plot holes, and that’s a plus too. The book is fast-paced, making for an easy and quick read. It isn’t bogged down with too much exposition, either. In fact, it might not have enough in some cases. Fortunately, it doesn’t detract too much from what’s going on.
Also, characters. There are too many characters whose purpose isn’t revealed in this book. Granted it’s the first of a series and they probably have a reason to exist later on down the road, but ultimately I feel it would have been better if those characters were introduced later. Instead we end up with a handful of people we don’t care about, and not enough time to develop feelings for those we do meet.
Morris’s werewolves are an important topic of discussion too. They are somewhere in-between the romanticized version and the truly monstrous. As a fan of gore and horror, I was hoping for purely the latter–especially since it is an apocalypse book. While there is some sappiness to this crew of mangy mutts, much of their desires lean toward the more primal nature of a wolf.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; I devoured it in just over twenty-four hours and, considering all that’s going on in my life, that’s a good thing. Rating wise, I’m stuck between three and four. Considering how much fun I had reading it, I’ve decided to lean toward the higher rating. This is definitely a fun book.
I would like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.