Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Edward Scissorhands (1990) in Movies
Apr 23, 2020
Has more heart than later Burton/Depp collaborations
There have been many actor/director long term collaborations through the years - John Ford/John Wayne, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro and Alfred Hitchock/Jimmy Stewart all come to mind. Another interesting collaboration is the unique one between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The films these 2 have made have shown an "outsider" being introduced into an environment - usually in a quirky and gothic dark manner. So it was interesting to go back to the film that started it all - 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Have you ever been at a dinner party that has gone on little too long? You were greeted warmly, settled quickly and comfortably, it's been fun, the company has been in fine form, spinning anecdotes that have entertained. But towards the end, you've all run out of things to say, no one quite knows if it's time to leave or not and it's all got a bit awkward.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
Natasha Khan recommended Innocence & Despair by The Langley Schools Music Project in Music (curated)
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Spree (2020) in Movies
Jan 24, 2021
Different
In a world filled with YouTubers and social media influencers, it was inevitable that eventually we’d get a film shot in the style of a social media stream. We’ve seen similar with films like Unfriended and Searching, taking on the likes of social media whilst shot entirely from a webcam. However Spree is the first that I’ve seen that takes on social media almost entirely from live streaming or go pro recordings, and overall it’s a pretty decent attempt.
Spree is a 2020 comedy horror film starring Joe Keery as Kurt Kunkle, a failing social media influencer who works as a driver for a rideshare app called Spree. Fed up of his lack of viewers, Kurt decides to fit out his car with cameras and livestream “The Lesson”, where he instructs viewers on how to become famous on social media while picking up passengers and murdering them. One of the passengers he lets go is comedian Jessie Adams (Sasheer Zamata), a star and social media success who Kurt becomes obsessed with over the course of his murderous evening.
Spree is definitely a fun film. The comedic horror style works very well, especially in the first half although later on it does make way for a more serious side. There’s a decent amount of blood and gore too and it has a wonderfully cheesy B-movie vibe about it. What makes Spree so fun though is Joe Keery. His performance as an influencer is entirely believable and it’s his charisma and baby-faced innocence that makes this film watchable. He spends the entirety of the film like he’s high and hyped up on energy drinks and while this does make his performance a little over the top, this is exactly what Spree needs. David Arquette as Kurt’s dad also brings a lot of fun although his screen time is sadly lacking.
Despite Spree’s dark comedic feel, there’s a more serious story and commentary underlying this film. It might look as though it’s making light of social media influencers, but actually it’s making a rather serious point of the pressures and negatives of the constant need influencers have to be liked and obtain more followers. Kurt’s story is rather sad, and even the other characters like Jessie are shown to have their own stories but still stuck in the same social media behaviour. The live streams used to shoot most of this film, with the likes and comments from viewers, emphasise the pitfalls and real life issues with social media.
Admittedly this live stream method does get a little thin by the end of the 90 minute run time, and after the initial few murders, it’s only Keery’s performance that holds the film up to the end. It isn’t helped that aside from Kurt, none of his victims are particularly likeable and it makes them very difficult to relate to or care about. And this also goes for Jessie who despite her heroine status, becomes unlikeable due to how she too bows to the pressure of social media.
I’m not a fan of the YouTube and influencer revolution, so for me Spree was an interesting take on this and social media in general. It has a good point to make and a serious message, although this may be overshadowed by the dark comedy and horror. With a great turn from Joe Keery, it’s a fun film but not entirely memorable.
Spree is a 2020 comedy horror film starring Joe Keery as Kurt Kunkle, a failing social media influencer who works as a driver for a rideshare app called Spree. Fed up of his lack of viewers, Kurt decides to fit out his car with cameras and livestream “The Lesson”, where he instructs viewers on how to become famous on social media while picking up passengers and murdering them. One of the passengers he lets go is comedian Jessie Adams (Sasheer Zamata), a star and social media success who Kurt becomes obsessed with over the course of his murderous evening.
Spree is definitely a fun film. The comedic horror style works very well, especially in the first half although later on it does make way for a more serious side. There’s a decent amount of blood and gore too and it has a wonderfully cheesy B-movie vibe about it. What makes Spree so fun though is Joe Keery. His performance as an influencer is entirely believable and it’s his charisma and baby-faced innocence that makes this film watchable. He spends the entirety of the film like he’s high and hyped up on energy drinks and while this does make his performance a little over the top, this is exactly what Spree needs. David Arquette as Kurt’s dad also brings a lot of fun although his screen time is sadly lacking.
Despite Spree’s dark comedic feel, there’s a more serious story and commentary underlying this film. It might look as though it’s making light of social media influencers, but actually it’s making a rather serious point of the pressures and negatives of the constant need influencers have to be liked and obtain more followers. Kurt’s story is rather sad, and even the other characters like Jessie are shown to have their own stories but still stuck in the same social media behaviour. The live streams used to shoot most of this film, with the likes and comments from viewers, emphasise the pitfalls and real life issues with social media.
Admittedly this live stream method does get a little thin by the end of the 90 minute run time, and after the initial few murders, it’s only Keery’s performance that holds the film up to the end. It isn’t helped that aside from Kurt, none of his victims are particularly likeable and it makes them very difficult to relate to or care about. And this also goes for Jessie who despite her heroine status, becomes unlikeable due to how she too bows to the pressure of social media.
I’m not a fan of the YouTube and influencer revolution, so for me Spree was an interesting take on this and social media in general. It has a good point to make and a serious message, although this may be overshadowed by the dark comedy and horror. With a great turn from Joe Keery, it’s a fun film but not entirely memorable.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Peter is an orphan during World War II, stuck in a boys home, he believes something is happening and wants to be reunited with his mother, taken to Neverland, he learns that he has an ability unlike anyone else, he just needs to learn to believe in himself. Blackbeard has been taking orphans to help him mine for fairy dust in Neverland, he runs a strict ship which Peter upsets, however this will put Blackbeard closer than ever to getting what he wants. Hook is one of the miners that helps Peter escape, he wants to be free with his own tragic backstory. Tiger Lily has been leading the war against Blackbeard for years now, she knows the secrets to the fairies and now must protect them at all costs.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Crow (1994) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Close to the source material (2 more)
Great Cast
A powerful and emotional film
A Powerful Classic
The Crow is one of my all time favourite films as well as one of my all time favourite graphic novels.
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated In a Land of Paper Gods in Books
May 25, 2017
Better than expected
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, In a Land of Paper Gods is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, In a Land of Paper Gods focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
In a Land of Paper Gods is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read In a Land of Paper Gods, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, In a Land of Paper Gods is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, In a Land of Paper Gods focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
In a Land of Paper Gods is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read In a Land of Paper Gods, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
