Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Side Effects (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has been toying with the notion of retirement for a couple of years now, and has said that “Side Effects” will be his final film. I certainly hope not.
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
The Alex Crow
Book
From the critically acclaimed author of cult teen novel Grasshopper Jungle, Andrew Smith, comes a...
Lying in Wait
6.5
Rate It
Book
Sunday Times Top 10 Bestseller! Featured in the Richard and Judy Spring 2017 Book Club 'Gone Girl...
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).
