Search
Shadows and Reflections by Marc Almond
Album Watch
‘Shadows And Reflections’ features sumptuous arrangements of iconic torch songs and 60’s...
pop
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A bold new era
“We’re not on an island anymore” barks Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady towards the finale of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. And he’s not wrong, the fifth film in the Jurassic franchise says goodbye to Isla Nublar in rip-roaring fashion, transforming itself into a a family friendly gothic horror film in its last hour.
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated The Myth of Perpetual Summer in Books
Jun 19, 2018
Tennessee Williams meets Anne Tyler in award-winning novelist Susan Crandall's gorgeously penned family opus. Centered on the oldest daughter of a unique Mississippi family, The Myth of Perpetual Summer is certain to appeal to book clubs.
Moving back and forth in time between 1972 and the late 1950s and early '60s, after she learns that her younger brother has been arrested for murder in a crime that's captured national attention, Tallulah James leaves the California home she's made for herself and returns back to her southern hometown where every corner holds dozens of memories.
Wondering where it all went wrong, after she finds unexpected help for her brother's case from an old crush and family friend, Ross Saenger, Tallulah begins seeking out answers for the many mysteries of the past including the truth about her brilliant but unstable father's family tree as well as her parents' turbulent relationship.
After beginning with quite the plot hook, the pace slows down considerably with Myth requiring a good eighty or so pages to establish both its characters and momentum to the point that it's hard to put down.
Having drawn comparisons to both The Secret Life of Bees and Forrest Gump, Crandall's Myth is also reminiscent of Mary Karr's memoirs. But while Myth eventually leads a majority of its characters to well earned conclusions, it's still slightly disappointing to see how quickly the author wraps up certain plot points. In fact, it's a main source of trouble for the otherwise moving last hundred pages of the novel. And nowhere is Crandall's difficulty in judging her reader's interest better epitomized than her decision to spend far more time on a romantic backstory with Tallulah and a character who appears out of thin air (whom we could care less about) than the one that Crandall built for nearly the entire length of the novel that pays off in two pages.
Though limited by the decision to present us with only one character's point-of-view, while the romantic plotline was in great need of either more obstacles or reflection, so were other characters throughout, including the one that's sure to be a reader favorite in the form of Tallulah's protective older brother, Griff. A major protagonist in the novel's extended flashback, I couldn't help but have wished he played an even greater role in the present day '70s storyline as he did in the past.
From the blink and you'll miss it decision for a main character to run away to the solution of a murder – both of which occur in a mere page or two – while there's enough going on in the plot and character heavy book to forgive some of its lopsided storytelling, Myth should've spent less time on extraneous subplots and more ink on what really matters.
Nonetheless a lovely work of Southern Gothic fiction anchored by a strong female protagonist, Crandall's promising Myth may have its flaws. But like a good glass of lemonade on a hot summer day, you can't enjoy the sweet without the sour and thankfully there's enough of both here to keep you coming back for more.
Note – I received an ARC of the novel through Bookish First and if given the opportunity, I would've rated it 7.5 stars.
Moving back and forth in time between 1972 and the late 1950s and early '60s, after she learns that her younger brother has been arrested for murder in a crime that's captured national attention, Tallulah James leaves the California home she's made for herself and returns back to her southern hometown where every corner holds dozens of memories.
Wondering where it all went wrong, after she finds unexpected help for her brother's case from an old crush and family friend, Ross Saenger, Tallulah begins seeking out answers for the many mysteries of the past including the truth about her brilliant but unstable father's family tree as well as her parents' turbulent relationship.
After beginning with quite the plot hook, the pace slows down considerably with Myth requiring a good eighty or so pages to establish both its characters and momentum to the point that it's hard to put down.
Having drawn comparisons to both The Secret Life of Bees and Forrest Gump, Crandall's Myth is also reminiscent of Mary Karr's memoirs. But while Myth eventually leads a majority of its characters to well earned conclusions, it's still slightly disappointing to see how quickly the author wraps up certain plot points. In fact, it's a main source of trouble for the otherwise moving last hundred pages of the novel. And nowhere is Crandall's difficulty in judging her reader's interest better epitomized than her decision to spend far more time on a romantic backstory with Tallulah and a character who appears out of thin air (whom we could care less about) than the one that Crandall built for nearly the entire length of the novel that pays off in two pages.
Though limited by the decision to present us with only one character's point-of-view, while the romantic plotline was in great need of either more obstacles or reflection, so were other characters throughout, including the one that's sure to be a reader favorite in the form of Tallulah's protective older brother, Griff. A major protagonist in the novel's extended flashback, I couldn't help but have wished he played an even greater role in the present day '70s storyline as he did in the past.
From the blink and you'll miss it decision for a main character to run away to the solution of a murder – both of which occur in a mere page or two – while there's enough going on in the plot and character heavy book to forgive some of its lopsided storytelling, Myth should've spent less time on extraneous subplots and more ink on what really matters.
Nonetheless a lovely work of Southern Gothic fiction anchored by a strong female protagonist, Crandall's promising Myth may have its flaws. But like a good glass of lemonade on a hot summer day, you can't enjoy the sweet without the sour and thankfully there's enough of both here to keep you coming back for more.
Note – I received an ARC of the novel through Bookish First and if given the opportunity, I would've rated it 7.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated BloodRayne (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a video game into a feature film is often a daunting task. With a large built in audience, gamers tend to be very picky over film adaptations and agitate very easily over even the slightest deviation from the source material.
Often in games, storylines are kept to the basic elements in order to keep the action flowing, unhindered by dialogue, character development, and plot twists as the notion is that gamers want action and will become bored if they have to wait through the elements listed above.
It is ironic that in films bases on games, the paring down of plot and characters in favor of a more linear setup and action often draws the wrath of critics and gamers for doing what game makers have been doing for years, letting gamers get to the goods.
In the new film Bloodrayne based on the hit game series of the same name by Majesco, Director Uwe Boll has crafted a film that explores the how and whys of the game series, focusing on the origins of the title character Rayne (Kristanna Loken), who toils as the half-human, half-vampire Dhampir in remote 18th century Romania as a freak in a traveling circus. Here ability to be burned by water yet healed by the blood of animals is a big drawing card to the circus, who has no problem exploiting her only to lock her in an animal cage when the show is over.
Unknown to Rayne, her fate is about to become entwined with a man named Vladamir (Michael Madsen), a vampire hunter and member of a secret society dedicated to eliminating the threat they pose. It is learned that the land is under the control of a powerful vampire named Kagan (Ben Kinglsey), who is seeking to locate and reunite three vampire relics in an effort to gain absolute power.
In time Rayne is brought into the order that sees her as a tool for fighting back the ever increasing army of Kagan. This movie is not met well by certain members of the group, especially Katarin (Michelle Rodriquez), who is not certain that bringing a person who is part vampire into their midst is a good idea.
Despite rising tensions and a steamy attraction to a hunter named Sebastian (Matt Davis), Rayne soon finds herself part of the group and firmly matched up against Kagan and his minions with the fate of the world in the balance.
While the film has some issues such as a thin plot and at times stiff acting and basic dialogue it is a marked improvement for Boll who has received harsh criticisms of his past works. Bloodrayne blends exotic visuals with classic gothic touches in a manner that compliments the material and is never heavy handed. The action scenes while gory are engaging and abundant, especially the inclusion of so called Boss battles that are common in video games.
While Bloodrayne has its blemishes, the film has its moments and is not nearly as bad as several mean spirited campaigns against it and Boll have suggested.
I have seen far worse films in the last 6 months such as The Cave, Into the Blue and Bewitched to name a few. As vampire films go, Bloodrayne is better than most of the horror offerings we have been inundated with in recent years less we forget “Wrong Turn” and “House of Wax”
Often in games, storylines are kept to the basic elements in order to keep the action flowing, unhindered by dialogue, character development, and plot twists as the notion is that gamers want action and will become bored if they have to wait through the elements listed above.
It is ironic that in films bases on games, the paring down of plot and characters in favor of a more linear setup and action often draws the wrath of critics and gamers for doing what game makers have been doing for years, letting gamers get to the goods.
In the new film Bloodrayne based on the hit game series of the same name by Majesco, Director Uwe Boll has crafted a film that explores the how and whys of the game series, focusing on the origins of the title character Rayne (Kristanna Loken), who toils as the half-human, half-vampire Dhampir in remote 18th century Romania as a freak in a traveling circus. Here ability to be burned by water yet healed by the blood of animals is a big drawing card to the circus, who has no problem exploiting her only to lock her in an animal cage when the show is over.
Unknown to Rayne, her fate is about to become entwined with a man named Vladamir (Michael Madsen), a vampire hunter and member of a secret society dedicated to eliminating the threat they pose. It is learned that the land is under the control of a powerful vampire named Kagan (Ben Kinglsey), who is seeking to locate and reunite three vampire relics in an effort to gain absolute power.
In time Rayne is brought into the order that sees her as a tool for fighting back the ever increasing army of Kagan. This movie is not met well by certain members of the group, especially Katarin (Michelle Rodriquez), who is not certain that bringing a person who is part vampire into their midst is a good idea.
Despite rising tensions and a steamy attraction to a hunter named Sebastian (Matt Davis), Rayne soon finds herself part of the group and firmly matched up against Kagan and his minions with the fate of the world in the balance.
While the film has some issues such as a thin plot and at times stiff acting and basic dialogue it is a marked improvement for Boll who has received harsh criticisms of his past works. Bloodrayne blends exotic visuals with classic gothic touches in a manner that compliments the material and is never heavy handed. The action scenes while gory are engaging and abundant, especially the inclusion of so called Boss battles that are common in video games.
While Bloodrayne has its blemishes, the film has its moments and is not nearly as bad as several mean spirited campaigns against it and Boll have suggested.
I have seen far worse films in the last 6 months such as The Cave, Into the Blue and Bewitched to name a few. As vampire films go, Bloodrayne is better than most of the horror offerings we have been inundated with in recent years less we forget “Wrong Turn” and “House of Wax”
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Vampyr in Video Games
Jun 21, 2019
Great story (2 more)
Great Atmosphere
Adaptive gameplay
Protect or Prey on the people of London in Vampyr
Vampyr is a mixed bag that may not be for everyone. It really depends on the types of games you like on this one (as with Until Dawn).
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.
JT (287 KP) rated Mama (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
When a film is presented by a well-known director it initially has a certain weight to it that will place it above the shoulders of others. In the case of horror/thriller Mama it has the backing of Spanish director Guillermo del Toro which is a certain plus point for any one who is a fan.
However, any big name attachment is probably there to push the marketing of the film, sadly this one doesn’t quite do itself much justice and falls some way short of achieving any greatness.
It’s a film of two halves, which as the second and third acts take shape becomes more and more ridiculous.
The film is brought to the big screen by director by Andrés Muschietti who also helmed the short three minute piece. It follows the story of two girls Lily and Victoria who are taken away by their father Jeffrey after he goes a bit doolally and offs his co-workers and wife.
When the car they are travelling in crashes they take shelter in a house deep in the forest, riddled with guilt Jeffrey then decides to enter into murder suicide, but something supernatural stops him and the girls are left to fend for themselves.
Move ahead five years and Jeffrey’s brother Lucas continues his search for the girls hiring a couple of hicks to trail the forest looking for the derelict cabin. When they are finally found the girls are practically feral and need psychiatric supervision as they are welcomed back into society.
Lucas and his grunge girlfriend Annabel are given custody as well as a nice new house for them to live in, all under the watchful eye of Dr. Dreyfuss. Once inside the house its clear to see that the girls have brought something back with them, something that doesn’t want to let them go.
Mama starts well enough, with a frenetic opening that glimpses the supernatural entity through blurred vision it moves from eerie strength to strength building tension and then unleashing it in small doses not giving the audience long enough to draw breath.
Of course it sticks quite closely to now tried and tested horror clichés, with things lurking in the shadows, children talking to imaginary nothingness and the so old “what’s in the closet” routine?
Then the director, whether bored with just giving us tit bits of the mother like antagonist, decides to reveal ‘it’ in all its glory. It then moves from scare mongering horror to poorly constructed ghost story in the space of a few minutes.
The acting is nothing to write home about, Jessica Chastain while so dominant in Zero Dark Thirty is flat and a little off the mark here, why the need for the grunge look is beyond me. Maybe it was in keeping with the Gothic back story?
The young girls do well, sweet and innocent yet dependable when needed, the rest of the cast pretty much fall by the wayside. The ending was for me beyond ridiculous and undid most if not all of the good work the start gave us, although saying that it was pretty much on the decline when Mama herself becomes much more of a central character.
It’s not as main stream a horror as you would expect, but the protagonist shadows the central figure that graced the god awful Darkness Falls and that is one supernatural entity well worth staying away from.
However, any big name attachment is probably there to push the marketing of the film, sadly this one doesn’t quite do itself much justice and falls some way short of achieving any greatness.
It’s a film of two halves, which as the second and third acts take shape becomes more and more ridiculous.
The film is brought to the big screen by director by Andrés Muschietti who also helmed the short three minute piece. It follows the story of two girls Lily and Victoria who are taken away by their father Jeffrey after he goes a bit doolally and offs his co-workers and wife.
When the car they are travelling in crashes they take shelter in a house deep in the forest, riddled with guilt Jeffrey then decides to enter into murder suicide, but something supernatural stops him and the girls are left to fend for themselves.
Move ahead five years and Jeffrey’s brother Lucas continues his search for the girls hiring a couple of hicks to trail the forest looking for the derelict cabin. When they are finally found the girls are practically feral and need psychiatric supervision as they are welcomed back into society.
Lucas and his grunge girlfriend Annabel are given custody as well as a nice new house for them to live in, all under the watchful eye of Dr. Dreyfuss. Once inside the house its clear to see that the girls have brought something back with them, something that doesn’t want to let them go.
Mama starts well enough, with a frenetic opening that glimpses the supernatural entity through blurred vision it moves from eerie strength to strength building tension and then unleashing it in small doses not giving the audience long enough to draw breath.
Of course it sticks quite closely to now tried and tested horror clichés, with things lurking in the shadows, children talking to imaginary nothingness and the so old “what’s in the closet” routine?
Then the director, whether bored with just giving us tit bits of the mother like antagonist, decides to reveal ‘it’ in all its glory. It then moves from scare mongering horror to poorly constructed ghost story in the space of a few minutes.
The acting is nothing to write home about, Jessica Chastain while so dominant in Zero Dark Thirty is flat and a little off the mark here, why the need for the grunge look is beyond me. Maybe it was in keeping with the Gothic back story?
The young girls do well, sweet and innocent yet dependable when needed, the rest of the cast pretty much fall by the wayside. The ending was for me beyond ridiculous and undid most if not all of the good work the start gave us, although saying that it was pretty much on the decline when Mama herself becomes much more of a central character.
It’s not as main stream a horror as you would expect, but the protagonist shadows the central figure that graced the god awful Darkness Falls and that is one supernatural entity well worth staying away from.