Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Coming 2 America (2021) in Movies
Mar 16, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Almost all of the original cast returns for this sequel (2 more)
Lots of laughs
Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprising many of the roles where they played multiple characters again.
Terrible character development (2 more)
Plot doesn't make sense at times or feels like missing scenes or plot development
Some jokes fall flat or feel forced and the trailer spoils some
Lots of Laughs and Callbacks But Not Enough Substance
Prince Akeem of Zamunda (Eddie Murphy) is visited by General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) who pushes for Akeem's eldest daughter Meeka (Kiki Layne) to marry his foppish son, Idi (Rotimi). Nexdoria is a hostile militaristic neighbor nation ruled by General Izzi, who is also the brother of Akeem's original arranged bride-to-be. Izzi threatens Akeem and says that it is better to be bound by blood and family then divided by blood and war. This occurs on the very day that Zamunda is celebrating the 30th anniversary of Prince Akeem and Lisa's wedding. King Jaffe Joffer (James Earl Jones) summons Akeem and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) and reminds them that only a male heir can inherit his kingdom. He summons his shaman Baba and they reveal that Akeem has a long lost son in America that he must retrieve in order to avoid a hostile takeover by Nexdoria.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
Mothergamer (1568 KP) rated the PC version of Dragon Age II in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I finished Dragon Age 2 and let's just say I am feeling conflicted. I absolutely loved Origins and Awakening. The story was well thought out and throw in the factor of every choice you made had a consequence of being good, evil, or in a gray area, it really made you pay attention and think about what you wanted to do throughout the story line. There was also more to explore on the map, and there was some depth to the design, such as the forests of Ferelden, the Dalish elves camp, and Orzammar.
I was extremely excited about Dragon Age 2 and even got the signature edition. You get a lot of great items and cool downloadable content like The Black Emporium shop and The Exiled Prince quest. However, playing Dragon Age 2 I couldn't help but notice a lot of glaring flaws throughout it with the battle system and with some of the map designs. There are also for me, some issues with parts of the story and this does include some of Hawke's story.
First, let me start with why I had a problem with Hawke's story. There are parts of it that seem rather pointless, as if Hawke is going through the motions and not really driven the way the hero was in Origins and Awakening. There's a lack of intensity. There is also a glaring lack of tough choices. I love a great story and with Origins and Awakening, there were choices that could be made that would affect the story, take it down a different path, and everything you decided had consequences. With Dragon Age 2, it seems the story was only written one way and no matter what the player does or decides, they become the Champion the same way and go through the same events. It falls flat when you think about the intricacies and plot twists of the previous two games.
I did like the interactions with the members of your party and there were even characters I genuinely liked. I found that my top three were Varric, Fenris, and Isabela. Hawke has a voice, so some of these interactions had a little more emotion to them, but frankly it seemed like the companions were far more interesting and witty. Even their quests and stories were more interesting to me. There was one part of Hawke's story that really had me going and to the person who wrote that, I say great job. As for the rest, it just felt dull. Sure, the ending has a fantastic pivotal point to the story line, but it felt like a chore to get to it at certain points in the game.
Overall, I had no problem with the battle system. It was much easier to navigate, the action is fast and fluid, and the AI is pretty spot on when it comes to the other party members, making for a pretty exciting furious battle. Yet, there was a problem. Let me be clear with all my friends who told me I could change the difficulty setting to casual if a battle was too hard, I DID. I then tried various tactics and party set ups and got annihilated eight times or more. I'll give everyone a moment to let that sink in. Now, maybe it's a crazy concept, but the casual setting on a video game means you don't have lots of dead party members and game over screens. Yes, it's still a battle, but not quite so difficult. When a battle is hard on the EASY setting, that's a huge problem for me. Factor in the 30 second cool down timer for healing potions, and healing spells, it borders on ridiculous.
While I understand that the gist of this idea was it makes you plan out and think carefully about strategies for quests, boss battles, and random fights a 30 second heal timer does not work. I could understand having a timer, but 30 seconds can make or break a quest or story oriented battle in Dragon Age 2. I played as a rogue for the first play through, and I found myself kiting things a hell of a lot waiting for the timer to be up and hoping I wouldn't die before I could heal. Needless to say, it got incredibly frustrating quite a few times!
Finally, we have the sheer laziness of the map and dungeon designs. It was as if there was just one prototype for everything when it came to the buildings in Kirkwall. The "poor house" design, and the "rich mansion" design came across as bland and was a telling sign of how rushed this game was. There's also one map for the sewers, the Deep Roads, one mine, one mountain, and one cave. You basically go back and forth with five different locations on the world map. Compared to the other maps in the Dragon Age games, this is shameful. The map is ridiculously tiny, but it's as if they were lazy and couldn't be bothered with making the locations stand out and be unique from each other.
I liked Dragon Age 2, but I didn't love it the way I did Origins and Awakening. I can honestly say, it's a good game, but not a great one. There's too many predictable points in some of the story telling and it's quite obvious to see where certain things were rushed especially with certain cut scenes where the characters were blinking in and out of frame. I can not in good conscience give Dragon Age 2 a stellar review as an amazing game, because it isn't. Believe me, that kills me because I absolutely love the Dragon Age series, but with that many flaws, it's not worth full price.
I was extremely excited about Dragon Age 2 and even got the signature edition. You get a lot of great items and cool downloadable content like The Black Emporium shop and The Exiled Prince quest. However, playing Dragon Age 2 I couldn't help but notice a lot of glaring flaws throughout it with the battle system and with some of the map designs. There are also for me, some issues with parts of the story and this does include some of Hawke's story.
First, let me start with why I had a problem with Hawke's story. There are parts of it that seem rather pointless, as if Hawke is going through the motions and not really driven the way the hero was in Origins and Awakening. There's a lack of intensity. There is also a glaring lack of tough choices. I love a great story and with Origins and Awakening, there were choices that could be made that would affect the story, take it down a different path, and everything you decided had consequences. With Dragon Age 2, it seems the story was only written one way and no matter what the player does or decides, they become the Champion the same way and go through the same events. It falls flat when you think about the intricacies and plot twists of the previous two games.
I did like the interactions with the members of your party and there were even characters I genuinely liked. I found that my top three were Varric, Fenris, and Isabela. Hawke has a voice, so some of these interactions had a little more emotion to them, but frankly it seemed like the companions were far more interesting and witty. Even their quests and stories were more interesting to me. There was one part of Hawke's story that really had me going and to the person who wrote that, I say great job. As for the rest, it just felt dull. Sure, the ending has a fantastic pivotal point to the story line, but it felt like a chore to get to it at certain points in the game.
Overall, I had no problem with the battle system. It was much easier to navigate, the action is fast and fluid, and the AI is pretty spot on when it comes to the other party members, making for a pretty exciting furious battle. Yet, there was a problem. Let me be clear with all my friends who told me I could change the difficulty setting to casual if a battle was too hard, I DID. I then tried various tactics and party set ups and got annihilated eight times or more. I'll give everyone a moment to let that sink in. Now, maybe it's a crazy concept, but the casual setting on a video game means you don't have lots of dead party members and game over screens. Yes, it's still a battle, but not quite so difficult. When a battle is hard on the EASY setting, that's a huge problem for me. Factor in the 30 second cool down timer for healing potions, and healing spells, it borders on ridiculous.
While I understand that the gist of this idea was it makes you plan out and think carefully about strategies for quests, boss battles, and random fights a 30 second heal timer does not work. I could understand having a timer, but 30 seconds can make or break a quest or story oriented battle in Dragon Age 2. I played as a rogue for the first play through, and I found myself kiting things a hell of a lot waiting for the timer to be up and hoping I wouldn't die before I could heal. Needless to say, it got incredibly frustrating quite a few times!
Finally, we have the sheer laziness of the map and dungeon designs. It was as if there was just one prototype for everything when it came to the buildings in Kirkwall. The "poor house" design, and the "rich mansion" design came across as bland and was a telling sign of how rushed this game was. There's also one map for the sewers, the Deep Roads, one mine, one mountain, and one cave. You basically go back and forth with five different locations on the world map. Compared to the other maps in the Dragon Age games, this is shameful. The map is ridiculously tiny, but it's as if they were lazy and couldn't be bothered with making the locations stand out and be unique from each other.
I liked Dragon Age 2, but I didn't love it the way I did Origins and Awakening. I can honestly say, it's a good game, but not a great one. There's too many predictable points in some of the story telling and it's quite obvious to see where certain things were rushed especially with certain cut scenes where the characters were blinking in and out of frame. I can not in good conscience give Dragon Age 2 a stellar review as an amazing game, because it isn't. Believe me, that kills me because I absolutely love the Dragon Age series, but with that many flaws, it's not worth full price.
Jayme (18 KP) rated Underwater in Books
Mar 28, 2018
Plot (1 more)
Emotion
Contains spoilers, click to show
Marisa Reichardt’s debut novel Underwater is a compelling account of a teenage girl’s struggles with agoraphobia caused by a traumatic shooting taking place in her high school. The book intended for a young adult audience follows Morgan as as she tries to cope with several adversities in her life, primarily the fear of leaving her apartment. Morgan was content with wearing the same pajamas everyday while she did her schoolwork online and ate grilled cheese for lunch until a boy her age named Evan moved in next door. Evan showed up on Morgan’s door step smelling like the ocean, reminding her of summer and everything she missed outdoors. With help from Evan, her psychiatrist, her mom, and her little brother Ben, Morgan is able to finally confront her fears and take necessary steps toward recovery.
I found myself connecting to Morgan more than any other character within the book, and that connection began early on in her description of the day her younger brother was born.
"I think of Ben on the day he was born, all chubby and pink and bald. … I think of the newborn Ben next to my mom’s hospital bed and rocking him under dim lights while he slept in my arms. I fall asleep to the feeling of a love I never knew until my brother got here."
Being the youngest in my family and having no experience with anyone I knew having children, I was especially excited when my only sister got pregnant with her first child. I sat in an uncomfortable chair across the room from my sister’s hospital bed for thirteen hours while she was in labor. When she was finally ready to push, I stood at her side giving words of encouragement, and she even gave me the honor of cutting my nephew’s umbilical cord. I remember the warmth of my tears as I heard my nephew cry out, sucking in his first breaths of air. I left the hospital shortly after his delivery, allowing my sister to get some rest. I returned a few hours later and held my tiny nephew in my arms for the first time. I love plenty of people in my life, but it wasn’t until I watched my newborn nephew as he slept swaddled in the hospital-issued blanket that I fully understood the depths of the love I was capable of producing. The astonishment I felt holding my precious nephew can be compared to the feelings Morgan had toward her brother the day he was born.
What I found to be most fascinating about this book is the way the author tackles the problem of school shootings in a way that humanizes the shooter and his victims. Instead of making the shooter out to be a merciless attacker, he was demonstrated as a victim of neglect among his peers who deserves forgiveness for his mistakes. There have been one hundred and seventy-four school shootings in America since the year 2003. School shootings are a recurring issue in our society.
"Before Aaron’s Facebook was disabled, news outlets released photographs from his profile. They found the worst ones. The ones that painted the picture of a kid who was angry and alone. They interviewed neighbors who said Aaron spent weekends tinkering in the garage. His mom revealed Aaron had been in therapy since middle school. His dad revealed he kept guns in the house. For protection. From the world. Not from his son. Those were guns Aaron brought to school onOctober fifteenth. … And the only person who could give us answers, who could tell us why, was gone."
The media is quick to make the shooter out to be a monster instead of acknowledging the idea that people make drastic decisions, like one of shooting up a school, because they have no one to turn to.
Other personal accounts of shootings have been written, but there is nothing like this fictional demonstration of the aftereffects of such occurrences. Misty Bernell, the mother of a student killed in the Columbine High School shooting taking place in 1999, wrote the book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martydom of Cassie Bernall as a way of commemorating her daughter and spreading awareness of the lives lost in the tragic massacre. Reichardt manages to establish a point of view that allows readers to show empathy toward a victim in the shooting the same way Bernell does without downplaying the internal struggles Aaron, the shooter in the novel, may have been experiencing.
The successful manner in which Reichardt explores a real-time societal issue from a unique perspective provides enough grounds for me to recommend the book. However, I was also able to find many characteristics that made me feel invested in the well-being of the each of the characters within the novel. Morgan works especially hard to go outside in order to see her brother perform in his kindergarten play, the psychiatrist meets with Morgan for free because the psychiatrist wanted Morgan to know she was being heard, Evan offering his old prepaid cell phone to Morgan so they could send text messages to communicate the problems Morgan was too afraid to talk about out loud, and the way Morgan’s mother compromises with Morgan and attempts to understand her feelings. Each character demonstrates selflessness and unconditional love while maneuvering through a situation where love and support are crucial to the mental health of everyone involved. Reading about people who truly care about each other and work to build each other up in a difficult time instead of worrying only of themselves is refreshing.
I found myself connecting to Morgan more than any other character within the book, and that connection began early on in her description of the day her younger brother was born.
"I think of Ben on the day he was born, all chubby and pink and bald. … I think of the newborn Ben next to my mom’s hospital bed and rocking him under dim lights while he slept in my arms. I fall asleep to the feeling of a love I never knew until my brother got here."
Being the youngest in my family and having no experience with anyone I knew having children, I was especially excited when my only sister got pregnant with her first child. I sat in an uncomfortable chair across the room from my sister’s hospital bed for thirteen hours while she was in labor. When she was finally ready to push, I stood at her side giving words of encouragement, and she even gave me the honor of cutting my nephew’s umbilical cord. I remember the warmth of my tears as I heard my nephew cry out, sucking in his first breaths of air. I left the hospital shortly after his delivery, allowing my sister to get some rest. I returned a few hours later and held my tiny nephew in my arms for the first time. I love plenty of people in my life, but it wasn’t until I watched my newborn nephew as he slept swaddled in the hospital-issued blanket that I fully understood the depths of the love I was capable of producing. The astonishment I felt holding my precious nephew can be compared to the feelings Morgan had toward her brother the day he was born.
What I found to be most fascinating about this book is the way the author tackles the problem of school shootings in a way that humanizes the shooter and his victims. Instead of making the shooter out to be a merciless attacker, he was demonstrated as a victim of neglect among his peers who deserves forgiveness for his mistakes. There have been one hundred and seventy-four school shootings in America since the year 2003. School shootings are a recurring issue in our society.
"Before Aaron’s Facebook was disabled, news outlets released photographs from his profile. They found the worst ones. The ones that painted the picture of a kid who was angry and alone. They interviewed neighbors who said Aaron spent weekends tinkering in the garage. His mom revealed Aaron had been in therapy since middle school. His dad revealed he kept guns in the house. For protection. From the world. Not from his son. Those were guns Aaron brought to school onOctober fifteenth. … And the only person who could give us answers, who could tell us why, was gone."
The media is quick to make the shooter out to be a monster instead of acknowledging the idea that people make drastic decisions, like one of shooting up a school, because they have no one to turn to.
Other personal accounts of shootings have been written, but there is nothing like this fictional demonstration of the aftereffects of such occurrences. Misty Bernell, the mother of a student killed in the Columbine High School shooting taking place in 1999, wrote the book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martydom of Cassie Bernall as a way of commemorating her daughter and spreading awareness of the lives lost in the tragic massacre. Reichardt manages to establish a point of view that allows readers to show empathy toward a victim in the shooting the same way Bernell does without downplaying the internal struggles Aaron, the shooter in the novel, may have been experiencing.
The successful manner in which Reichardt explores a real-time societal issue from a unique perspective provides enough grounds for me to recommend the book. However, I was also able to find many characteristics that made me feel invested in the well-being of the each of the characters within the novel. Morgan works especially hard to go outside in order to see her brother perform in his kindergarten play, the psychiatrist meets with Morgan for free because the psychiatrist wanted Morgan to know she was being heard, Evan offering his old prepaid cell phone to Morgan so they could send text messages to communicate the problems Morgan was too afraid to talk about out loud, and the way Morgan’s mother compromises with Morgan and attempts to understand her feelings. Each character demonstrates selflessness and unconditional love while maneuvering through a situation where love and support are crucial to the mental health of everyone involved. Reading about people who truly care about each other and work to build each other up in a difficult time instead of worrying only of themselves is refreshing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien Abduction (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien Abduction starts by informing us this is based on actual footage found, *sigh*. This before going off to show us footage that looks like is being shot through a pair of fingers with screaming in the background. All this and the camera gets dropped out the spacecraft. The film then decides to inform us about The Brown Mountain Lights a location in North Carolina that has a high disappearance rate. Time for the experts and locals to give us their stories about what has been happening and a theory behind what is happening. More reading before we find out who the camera belonged too.
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Naomi Forrest (42 KP) rated The Toy Makers in Books
Jan 2, 2019
The first thing on the very first page that I loved was the narrator setting the scene and talking directly to you:
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!