Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Crowning of the Fire King by Sorcerer
Album Watch
Sorcerer was formed in Stockholm, Sweden in 1988 by Johnny Hagel (Tiamat, Sundown, Lithium), Tommy...
metal
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Star Wars goes western
Star Wars has had somewhat of a chequered history since turning over to the dark side, sorry, I mean Disney. You see, since LucasFilm was acquired by the House of Mouse there has been one Star Wars movie each year. The Force Awakens was good, if a little safe and The Last Jedi was brilliant, but incredibly divisive.
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.