Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Trust No One
It felt like I’d been waiting an eternity for Greta, and the suspense was killing me. I’d seen plenty of feedback from those who attended TIFF, and the trailer had played before so many films I’d seen in the cinema. The concept had intrigued me from day one, as I find myself very drawn to thrillers such as this one. Being stalked is a very real, very genuine fear, and it’s that sense of realism that makes it so terrifying.
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Unborn (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: The Unborn starts when young woman Casey (Annable) starts seeing visions and getting warnings about someone wanting to be born, with her best friend Romy (Good) and her boyfriend Mark (Gigandet) Casey starts to investigate and learns that she did in fact have a twin brother who died in the womb.
When Casey turns to a friend of her mother’s she learns about a spirit that is trying to find his way into the real world and she must turn to Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) for answers and a potential cure from the possession.
Thoughts on The Unborn
Characters – Casey is a young woman that seems to have a normal life until one day she starts seeing visions, getting strange messages, she must research her past to protect her future, a past that is filled with pain and loss as well as a secret she would never be prepared for. We do follow Casey for most part of this film, the problem with her character is that we don’t learn anything about her before the unusual starts happening, is she a good or bad person, we learn nothing, it just starts with her being visited. Rabbi Sendak is the man Casey must turn to for help, he understands how the exorcizing would need to be done while offering the basic advice to Casey before stepping in himself. Mark is the boyfriend, that is about all we learn about him, he isn’t as supportive of the supernatural side of the events. Romy is the best friend, she will help on everything Casey is going through in an attempt to save her friend from the evil haunting her.
Performances – Odette Annable is the perfect fit for the leading role, she is a beautiful woman whose life is falling apart, she has a good horror scream and you believe it when she is scared. Gary Oldman, well the guy needs to make money, he does bring class to the role even in his limited role. Cam Gigandet is fine without doing too much Meagan Good gives us the only laughs in the film without being anything great in the supporting role.
Story – The story here follows one young woman that gets starts getting haunted by visions of a young boy and must figure out how to rid herself of this haunting. This story doesn’t take long to start with us going instantly into the first haunting and this pace doesn’t seem to let off, we are constantly going from moment of scares or explanation to what is causing the haunting. This hinders the story because we don’t get a chance to learn anything about the characters we are meant to be supporting, mostly Casey we know nothing about her or what her everyday life is, making it harder to support her. The story follows the horror genre with ease and is saved by a strong twist ending.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from jump scares, well attempted jump scares, most of the horror happens in the dark and is a small child haunting Casey, it does the basics well, though it won’t get the hardcore horror fan to jump. The mystery is more interesting as we must learn the truth about the haunting which goes in direction you wouldn’t see coming.
Settings – The film is set in Chicago which only adds to the horror because of the big city feeling to everything Casey is experience showing that even in the biggest crowd people could suffer possessional activity.
Special Effects – The effects have good moments, we the body folding moments being the highlights of the effects which gives us more towards the horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sofi’s last night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning anything about who or what these people do in everyday life.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic horror that gets the scares done simply, gives us weakly written characters and could pass the time simply enough.
Overall: Simple late night horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/the-unborn-2009/
When Casey turns to a friend of her mother’s she learns about a spirit that is trying to find his way into the real world and she must turn to Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) for answers and a potential cure from the possession.
Thoughts on The Unborn
Characters – Casey is a young woman that seems to have a normal life until one day she starts seeing visions, getting strange messages, she must research her past to protect her future, a past that is filled with pain and loss as well as a secret she would never be prepared for. We do follow Casey for most part of this film, the problem with her character is that we don’t learn anything about her before the unusual starts happening, is she a good or bad person, we learn nothing, it just starts with her being visited. Rabbi Sendak is the man Casey must turn to for help, he understands how the exorcizing would need to be done while offering the basic advice to Casey before stepping in himself. Mark is the boyfriend, that is about all we learn about him, he isn’t as supportive of the supernatural side of the events. Romy is the best friend, she will help on everything Casey is going through in an attempt to save her friend from the evil haunting her.
Performances – Odette Annable is the perfect fit for the leading role, she is a beautiful woman whose life is falling apart, she has a good horror scream and you believe it when she is scared. Gary Oldman, well the guy needs to make money, he does bring class to the role even in his limited role. Cam Gigandet is fine without doing too much Meagan Good gives us the only laughs in the film without being anything great in the supporting role.
Story – The story here follows one young woman that gets starts getting haunted by visions of a young boy and must figure out how to rid herself of this haunting. This story doesn’t take long to start with us going instantly into the first haunting and this pace doesn’t seem to let off, we are constantly going from moment of scares or explanation to what is causing the haunting. This hinders the story because we don’t get a chance to learn anything about the characters we are meant to be supporting, mostly Casey we know nothing about her or what her everyday life is, making it harder to support her. The story follows the horror genre with ease and is saved by a strong twist ending.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from jump scares, well attempted jump scares, most of the horror happens in the dark and is a small child haunting Casey, it does the basics well, though it won’t get the hardcore horror fan to jump. The mystery is more interesting as we must learn the truth about the haunting which goes in direction you wouldn’t see coming.
Settings – The film is set in Chicago which only adds to the horror because of the big city feeling to everything Casey is experience showing that even in the biggest crowd people could suffer possessional activity.
Special Effects – The effects have good moments, we the body folding moments being the highlights of the effects which gives us more towards the horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sofi’s last night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning anything about who or what these people do in everyday life.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic horror that gets the scares done simply, gives us weakly written characters and could pass the time simply enough.
Overall: Simple late night horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/the-unborn-2009/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Faceless Man (2019) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
Story: The Faceless Man starts when Emily (Thurling) a recovering cancer survivor who has starting to put her life back together is spending a weekend away with friends, Nina (Kauffeld), Kyle (Pittaway), Brad (Facciolo), Dave (Astifo) and Chad (Walia) are having a weekend away for parties.
It isn’t long before the group of friends have upset the local rednecks who decide to terrorize them, a ruthless drug dealer Viktor Nov (Goikhman) searching for them, while Emily is dealing with her own insecurities about her recover, which manifests itself in a faceless figure haunting her.
Thoughts on The Faceless Man
Characters – Emily is a cancer survivor, she made it with friends, not family and has just started to put her life back together, despite having the fear that one day it would return, which appears to her in living nightmares including a faceless man figure, out of the group of friends this is the only character that gets much outside the generics traits we learn, we have the friend that wants more of a relationship, the one that will push the limits of drugging people, a few jokers and the best friend who can’t handle their substances. Eddie is the owner of the rented house, he comes off creepy to the city slickers as he puts it, he doesn’t want trouble in his property and will deal with anybody that causes it. Viktor Nov is the ruthless drug dealer that has been hunting for his drugs which have a connection to the group of friends, he uses his muscle to kill anybody that disrespects him.
Performances – Sophie Thurling in the leading role is one of the highlights in the film, seeing Sophie balance the mindset of her character through the film will keep us wondering just what will happen next, Albert Goikhman as the ruthless drug dealer is fun to watch, we always know something violent is going to happen when he is on the screen. Andy McPhee does bring the awkward local to life well too.
Story – The story follows a group of friends that want to go on a drink & drug filled party weekend, only to end up in a town that isn’t happy with this lifestyle and that want to send a message to them, while we also see one character haunted by a terrifying looking faceless man. This story does have plenty going on, which works in and against it because you could easily drop one of the side stories and still have an enjoyable horror movie, but mixing them together does add to the mystery of what will happen next, because it does feel like nobody is safe from what is going on. We could have had more development on the group of friends, as it they end up coming off like your usual slasher cast. With the different arcs we do get plenty of violence which is what the film wants to pay respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, which will help understand the tone of the film.
Horror – The most impressive part of the horror in this film comes from the Faceless Man himself, it comes early in creepy moments, but the reveal of the creature is one of the most terrifying figures in horror this year.
Settings – The film is set in a small town location, with most of the action happening in the one house picked for the party, it shows how things can get out of hand and how uninvited guests can cause more problems in life.
Special Effects – The effects to create the Faceless Man are brilliant, he will scare you, where this film also shines is by letting us imagine the damage being down, with the chainsaw scene being played out longer than needed, which only adds to the horror being inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – The Faceless Man, first full reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The group of friends are not that interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film built of paying respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, it brings us plenty of blood and keeps us guessing along the way.
Overall: Ozploitation has returned.
It isn’t long before the group of friends have upset the local rednecks who decide to terrorize them, a ruthless drug dealer Viktor Nov (Goikhman) searching for them, while Emily is dealing with her own insecurities about her recover, which manifests itself in a faceless figure haunting her.
Thoughts on The Faceless Man
Characters – Emily is a cancer survivor, she made it with friends, not family and has just started to put her life back together, despite having the fear that one day it would return, which appears to her in living nightmares including a faceless man figure, out of the group of friends this is the only character that gets much outside the generics traits we learn, we have the friend that wants more of a relationship, the one that will push the limits of drugging people, a few jokers and the best friend who can’t handle their substances. Eddie is the owner of the rented house, he comes off creepy to the city slickers as he puts it, he doesn’t want trouble in his property and will deal with anybody that causes it. Viktor Nov is the ruthless drug dealer that has been hunting for his drugs which have a connection to the group of friends, he uses his muscle to kill anybody that disrespects him.
Performances – Sophie Thurling in the leading role is one of the highlights in the film, seeing Sophie balance the mindset of her character through the film will keep us wondering just what will happen next, Albert Goikhman as the ruthless drug dealer is fun to watch, we always know something violent is going to happen when he is on the screen. Andy McPhee does bring the awkward local to life well too.
Story – The story follows a group of friends that want to go on a drink & drug filled party weekend, only to end up in a town that isn’t happy with this lifestyle and that want to send a message to them, while we also see one character haunted by a terrifying looking faceless man. This story does have plenty going on, which works in and against it because you could easily drop one of the side stories and still have an enjoyable horror movie, but mixing them together does add to the mystery of what will happen next, because it does feel like nobody is safe from what is going on. We could have had more development on the group of friends, as it they end up coming off like your usual slasher cast. With the different arcs we do get plenty of violence which is what the film wants to pay respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, which will help understand the tone of the film.
Horror – The most impressive part of the horror in this film comes from the Faceless Man himself, it comes early in creepy moments, but the reveal of the creature is one of the most terrifying figures in horror this year.
Settings – The film is set in a small town location, with most of the action happening in the one house picked for the party, it shows how things can get out of hand and how uninvited guests can cause more problems in life.
Special Effects – The effects to create the Faceless Man are brilliant, he will scare you, where this film also shines is by letting us imagine the damage being down, with the chainsaw scene being played out longer than needed, which only adds to the horror being inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – The Faceless Man, first full reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The group of friends are not that interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film built of paying respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, it brings us plenty of blood and keeps us guessing along the way.
Overall: Ozploitation has returned.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Soul Drinker in Books
Jul 25, 2020
The writing (2 more)
No character development
No ending
One of the classic horror tropes is Heaven versus Hell, angels versus demons, good versus evil (like a boogeyman versus an innocent child, or a killer versus a group of teenagers, or even an evil spirit versus an exorcist) and we always know how it's going to end: good triumphs evil, every time. Some of the most well known films with this trope are Constantine (2005), the Exorcist (1973) and more recently, Stephen King's IT : Chapter 2 (2019).
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lee (2222 KP) Nov 13, 2018