Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Killers Anonymous (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2021
A killers' support group? Ooooooh, this could be fun.
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Color out of Space Is a film based on a H.P. Lovecraft staring Nicholas Cage so you know it's going to be weird.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Upgrade (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'd go classifying Upgrade as sci-fi action... for some reason it also has a genre of horror on IMDb. Sure it's a bit gory, but with everything that happens in it I wouldn't have lumped it in there as well. It briefly gave me pause to ponder where the lines of classification are... but that way madness lies!
This one isn't for the faint hearted. There's quite a lot of violence in it. There was only one bit that I thought "that was a bit much", but even then it was more that I reacted to it with an intake of breath and a slight wince before laughing... because it was a tad ridiculous. The guy in the row behind me did the same, but his girlfriend wasn't overly impressed.
I actually found Grey's reactions to his body doing violent things to be very well done, and a nice touch because you do forget that it's not actually him. Acting so that your face is doing something completely different to how your body is performing must be very challenging, but Marshall-Green did it really well. He had humour, and really brought out the conflict between his head and his body... wow, well there are just some things that you don't expect to say when reviewing films.
The main reason it's missing that last half star is purely personal preference. I like sci-fi, and I like mindless violence. What I don't like are the motion and camera quirks. But like I say, it's personal preference. Those tracking shots that put Grey centre of the frame and follow him round like it's a third person shooter game (third person?) did nothing for me, and made everything seem kind of jumpy. This was so you could get the contrast between him being in control and STEM being in control, and I understand that but it's a shame they couldn't find another way to do it. My only other bug was that when Grey is laying on the floor and STEM gets him up to standing he goes from horizontal to vertical like he's on a hinge. How is that even possible? STEM is still constrained by what the human body can do, right? And last time I checked I can't pivot from laying down to standing just on my heels.
What should you do?
Great lead, interesting story line... if you don't mind mindless violence then you should definitely go and see this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like to take home STEM and have my body be that coordinated all the time... but that does have the whole killer robot issue. So perhaps I'll just go with the self driving car this time.
This one isn't for the faint hearted. There's quite a lot of violence in it. There was only one bit that I thought "that was a bit much", but even then it was more that I reacted to it with an intake of breath and a slight wince before laughing... because it was a tad ridiculous. The guy in the row behind me did the same, but his girlfriend wasn't overly impressed.
I actually found Grey's reactions to his body doing violent things to be very well done, and a nice touch because you do forget that it's not actually him. Acting so that your face is doing something completely different to how your body is performing must be very challenging, but Marshall-Green did it really well. He had humour, and really brought out the conflict between his head and his body... wow, well there are just some things that you don't expect to say when reviewing films.
The main reason it's missing that last half star is purely personal preference. I like sci-fi, and I like mindless violence. What I don't like are the motion and camera quirks. But like I say, it's personal preference. Those tracking shots that put Grey centre of the frame and follow him round like it's a third person shooter game (third person?) did nothing for me, and made everything seem kind of jumpy. This was so you could get the contrast between him being in control and STEM being in control, and I understand that but it's a shame they couldn't find another way to do it. My only other bug was that when Grey is laying on the floor and STEM gets him up to standing he goes from horizontal to vertical like he's on a hinge. How is that even possible? STEM is still constrained by what the human body can do, right? And last time I checked I can't pivot from laying down to standing just on my heels.
What should you do?
Great lead, interesting story line... if you don't mind mindless violence then you should definitely go and see this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like to take home STEM and have my body be that coordinated all the time... but that does have the whole killer robot issue. So perhaps I'll just go with the self driving car this time.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 6, 2019 (Updated Oct 6, 2019)
Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a down on his luck loner, currently taking seven different kinds of medication and living with his frail old mother (Frances Conroe). Arthur fantasises about living a ‘normal’ life, with hopes of becoming a stand up comedian and dating his next door neighbour, and the lines between reality and fantasy begin to become just as blurred for us during the movie as they do within Arthur’s mind.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
Coffee Lovers Magazine - Drink Better Coffee
Food & Drink and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Discover, Make, and Drink better coffee - the most beautiful magazine for coffee lovers...
Dog Wallpapers & Pictures – Cute Dogs
Catalogs and Lifestyle
App
●●● Best Dog Wallpaper & Background app in the app store ●●● Are you looking for...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Night House (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2021
Rebecca Hall - outstanding (1 more)
Nicely vague script: leaves a lot to interpret
This one really creeped me out
Positives:
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Port in a Storm (Sinners #8) in Books
Jan 26, 2024
Connor wanted to give Forest the family he never had.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 8 in the Sinners Gin series. I would STRONGLY recommend you at least read Tequila Mockingbird (book 3 in the series) before this one. That book is how Connor and Forest came to be. The whole darn series is amazing, though, and staring at the beginning wouldn't be a bad thing :-)
Connor is a SWAT team leader and comes across Tate in a raid. The kid has had a hard life, and the name on his birth certificate is gonna cause problems. But Tate needs a home, and Connor and Forest want to give him that. Connor wants to give Forest the family he never had. They just gotta battle the courts first.
I didn't see this book coming at me in the way it did, but it absolutely came at the way it should have, you know? Nothing will ever be easy for Forest and Connor, and adding Tate to their family was no exception. But they have a huge support system in Connor's family and Forest's ever growing band family, even if some of Miki's advice is a little sketchy!
It's deeply emotional, with the feeling raging through both Connor and Forest about what to do, will they be enough, will they be allowed to bring this little boy into their family. Made me cry a time or two. I loved it.
I loved that everyone pops up, or is mentioned. It was great to catch up with the Morgan clan and all their add-ins. Especially as I thought that book 7 was going to be the last one! Are there more planned, I don't know, nor do I care, but I will read them as and when they appear.
It's been a long while since I read a Rhys Ford book, and by golly I missed her work. It took me a hot minute to get into her way with words and then I lost myself in the madness that is the Morgan clan and the Crossroads Gin guys.
OH! And the epilogue! Any chance of a cheeky short about Dude and Gaige?? That'll be fun!
But I'm left with a question that played on my mind the whole way through. As I was READING this, I heard Tristan James in my ear. The voices weren't quite right, but James' reading voice was there. Will he be narrating it, at some point?? I need him to!
So, thank you, Ms Ford, for bringing us back to these wonderful people one more time. I really do appreciate the time it took!
5 stunningly beautifully written stars
*same worded review will appear elsehwere
This is book 8 in the Sinners Gin series. I would STRONGLY recommend you at least read Tequila Mockingbird (book 3 in the series) before this one. That book is how Connor and Forest came to be. The whole darn series is amazing, though, and staring at the beginning wouldn't be a bad thing :-)
Connor is a SWAT team leader and comes across Tate in a raid. The kid has had a hard life, and the name on his birth certificate is gonna cause problems. But Tate needs a home, and Connor and Forest want to give him that. Connor wants to give Forest the family he never had. They just gotta battle the courts first.
I didn't see this book coming at me in the way it did, but it absolutely came at the way it should have, you know? Nothing will ever be easy for Forest and Connor, and adding Tate to their family was no exception. But they have a huge support system in Connor's family and Forest's ever growing band family, even if some of Miki's advice is a little sketchy!
It's deeply emotional, with the feeling raging through both Connor and Forest about what to do, will they be enough, will they be allowed to bring this little boy into their family. Made me cry a time or two. I loved it.
I loved that everyone pops up, or is mentioned. It was great to catch up with the Morgan clan and all their add-ins. Especially as I thought that book 7 was going to be the last one! Are there more planned, I don't know, nor do I care, but I will read them as and when they appear.
It's been a long while since I read a Rhys Ford book, and by golly I missed her work. It took me a hot minute to get into her way with words and then I lost myself in the madness that is the Morgan clan and the Crossroads Gin guys.
OH! And the epilogue! Any chance of a cheeky short about Dude and Gaige?? That'll be fun!
But I'm left with a question that played on my mind the whole way through. As I was READING this, I heard Tristan James in my ear. The voices weren't quite right, but James' reading voice was there. Will he be narrating it, at some point?? I need him to!
So, thank you, Ms Ford, for bringing us back to these wonderful people one more time. I really do appreciate the time it took!
5 stunningly beautifully written stars
*same worded review will appear elsehwere
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mindhunter - Season 1 in TV
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Fantastic Performances (3 more)
Brilliant Script
Good Direction
Great Soundtrack
A Method In The Madness?
Mindhunter is a Netflix series set in the late 70's, that follows two FBI detectives as they embark to learn more about serial killers and why they do the things that they do. One of the detectives, Bill Tench, actually coins the phrase, 'serial killer,' at one point and the team do seem to be making progressive steps into understanding a disturbed psyche, even if some of the methods they use along the way are fairly questionable.
The series is produced by David Fincher, who also directs 4 episodes of this first season. If you are a fan of Fincher's other work, then this will be right up your street. It shares a lot of similarities with Se7en, The Social Network, Gone Girl, Panic Room and definitely Zodiac. The two main series stars, Jonathan Groff and Holt McCallany are brilliant in their roles. You may recognise McCallany from Fight Club and Groff from Glee, but this show couldn't be a further departure from Glee if it tried, which makes Groff's already electric performance, even better.
McCallany plays Bill Tench, an older FBI agent who has a good few years of experience under his belt. Groff plays Holden Ford, a young maverick, who barges his way towards progress, regardless of who gets caught up in the collateral damage. The two work fantastically together and the chemistry between the two actors is one of the best things about this show. The supporting cast are also solid, with Hannah Gross standing out as Holden's girlfriend, as well as Anna Torv, who plays a doctor of psychology helping the two detectives analyse the data that they collect from interviews held with various serial killers. The serial killers featured throughout the show are also memorable, especially Jerry Brudos and Ed Kemper. Cameron Britton, who plays Kemper, gives a subtly terrifying performance and is exponentially engaging for every minute that he is onscreen.
The performances are helped with a brilliant script. The dialogue is snappy and effective, causing as many existential questions as it does unorthodox observations. Fincher's direction, is of course, fantastic and the other directors who work on this show also do a good job. The soundtrack to the show is sometimes antithetic to what is going on in the storyline, but it is always effective and never distracting. The shot composition and cinematography was also on point in each episode, with some really effective imagery being implemented throughout.
Overall, this is a brilliantly made, psychological drama. The writing is of a very high standard and the performances are excellent all around. If you are a fan of serial killer stories or anything David Fincher has worked on before, this will be for you. The characters are all interesting and deep and although they may do some questionable things, I can't wait to see where this endeavour takes them next.
The series is produced by David Fincher, who also directs 4 episodes of this first season. If you are a fan of Fincher's other work, then this will be right up your street. It shares a lot of similarities with Se7en, The Social Network, Gone Girl, Panic Room and definitely Zodiac. The two main series stars, Jonathan Groff and Holt McCallany are brilliant in their roles. You may recognise McCallany from Fight Club and Groff from Glee, but this show couldn't be a further departure from Glee if it tried, which makes Groff's already electric performance, even better.
McCallany plays Bill Tench, an older FBI agent who has a good few years of experience under his belt. Groff plays Holden Ford, a young maverick, who barges his way towards progress, regardless of who gets caught up in the collateral damage. The two work fantastically together and the chemistry between the two actors is one of the best things about this show. The supporting cast are also solid, with Hannah Gross standing out as Holden's girlfriend, as well as Anna Torv, who plays a doctor of psychology helping the two detectives analyse the data that they collect from interviews held with various serial killers. The serial killers featured throughout the show are also memorable, especially Jerry Brudos and Ed Kemper. Cameron Britton, who plays Kemper, gives a subtly terrifying performance and is exponentially engaging for every minute that he is onscreen.
The performances are helped with a brilliant script. The dialogue is snappy and effective, causing as many existential questions as it does unorthodox observations. Fincher's direction, is of course, fantastic and the other directors who work on this show also do a good job. The soundtrack to the show is sometimes antithetic to what is going on in the storyline, but it is always effective and never distracting. The shot composition and cinematography was also on point in each episode, with some really effective imagery being implemented throughout.
Overall, this is a brilliantly made, psychological drama. The writing is of a very high standard and the performances are excellent all around. If you are a fan of serial killer stories or anything David Fincher has worked on before, this will be for you. The characters are all interesting and deep and although they may do some questionable things, I can't wait to see where this endeavour takes them next.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Everest (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A by the numbers adventure
The 1996 Everest disaster remains one of the greatest true stories to have ever been told. From made-for-TV movies to award-winning documentaries, it appears that audiences simply cannot get enough of this tale of survival.
Now, Universal Pictures ends its record-breaking summer campaign with Everest, a high-budget thriller based on those events in 1996. But does it get the balance between all-out spectacle and human characterisation spot on?
Everest follows the fortunes of two climbing teams planning on making it to the top of the deadly mountain. The Adventure Consultants, led by Rob Hall, and Mountain Madness, guided by Scott Fischer, all make their way to the summit of Everest, battling against horrific storms, avalanches and the mountain itself along the way.
The film features an all-star cast, something not forgotten in its marketing campaign, with the likes of Jason Clarke as Hall, Jake Gyllenhaal as Fischer, Josh Brolin, Keira Knightley, Emily Watson and Sam Worthington all making an appearance as climbers and base-camp attendees.
There’s some great talent here but Everest simply cannot cope with that many characters jostling for screen time and the majority of the cast, bar Clarke, feel like cardboard cut-outs – this is a real shame given the true-story that the writers had to work with.
Knightley in particular is wasted with only ten minutes of screen time and Brolin’s side story is never fully explored to make you remember his character – especially when the onslaught of stormy weather makes it difficult to pick out each person at a glance.
Effects-wise, this is a huge spectacle. The cinematography is absolutely astounding and every shot is filled to the brim with colours, sounds and ragged landscapes – it’s absolutely stunning.
The scenes before the mountaineers start their final climb are particularly beautiful and the summit sequences themselves feel ridiculously real, all culminating in a film that looks and sounds spectacular, but just lacks that human touch needed to make it matter.
Unfortunately, there are no risks here, despite the ones being taken by our intrepid explorers and whilst the true-story elements lend the film some gravitas, everything else feels a little clichéd with a been there, done that attitude.
Naturally, the finale is when the emotional side comes into play with a selection of real video footage and photographs. This ensures that Everest finishes on a thought-provoking and intentionally sombre note. Yes, this is Hollywood at work, but this is not a film to be ‘enjoyed’ in the traditional sense.
Overall, Everest is a fine film with some breath-taking action sequences and top-notch special effects. Unfortunately, despite the fascinating true-story, the human characters don’t register until the final act and this stops it from being as memorable as it should be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/27/a-by-the-numbers-adventure-everest-review/
Now, Universal Pictures ends its record-breaking summer campaign with Everest, a high-budget thriller based on those events in 1996. But does it get the balance between all-out spectacle and human characterisation spot on?
Everest follows the fortunes of two climbing teams planning on making it to the top of the deadly mountain. The Adventure Consultants, led by Rob Hall, and Mountain Madness, guided by Scott Fischer, all make their way to the summit of Everest, battling against horrific storms, avalanches and the mountain itself along the way.
The film features an all-star cast, something not forgotten in its marketing campaign, with the likes of Jason Clarke as Hall, Jake Gyllenhaal as Fischer, Josh Brolin, Keira Knightley, Emily Watson and Sam Worthington all making an appearance as climbers and base-camp attendees.
There’s some great talent here but Everest simply cannot cope with that many characters jostling for screen time and the majority of the cast, bar Clarke, feel like cardboard cut-outs – this is a real shame given the true-story that the writers had to work with.
Knightley in particular is wasted with only ten minutes of screen time and Brolin’s side story is never fully explored to make you remember his character – especially when the onslaught of stormy weather makes it difficult to pick out each person at a glance.
Effects-wise, this is a huge spectacle. The cinematography is absolutely astounding and every shot is filled to the brim with colours, sounds and ragged landscapes – it’s absolutely stunning.
The scenes before the mountaineers start their final climb are particularly beautiful and the summit sequences themselves feel ridiculously real, all culminating in a film that looks and sounds spectacular, but just lacks that human touch needed to make it matter.
Unfortunately, there are no risks here, despite the ones being taken by our intrepid explorers and whilst the true-story elements lend the film some gravitas, everything else feels a little clichéd with a been there, done that attitude.
Naturally, the finale is when the emotional side comes into play with a selection of real video footage and photographs. This ensures that Everest finishes on a thought-provoking and intentionally sombre note. Yes, this is Hollywood at work, but this is not a film to be ‘enjoyed’ in the traditional sense.
Overall, Everest is a fine film with some breath-taking action sequences and top-notch special effects. Unfortunately, despite the fascinating true-story, the human characters don’t register until the final act and this stops it from being as memorable as it should be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/27/a-by-the-numbers-adventure-everest-review/