Search
Search results
The Spinner of Dreams
7.0
Rate It
Book
Inventive, empathetic, and strange in all the best ways, The Spinner of Dreams draws from the...
Darren Fisher (2447 KP) rated 13 Dolls In Darkness (2017) in Movies
Jul 24, 2022
I have been an obsessive fan of horror films since I was a kid in the 70's. Brought up on Hammer and Universal monster films it wasn't long before I delved into pre-cert exploitation films and that is where my preference has been ever since.
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Mendel's Ladder: A Grimdark Scifi Epic
10.0
Rate It
Book
Outlast. Outgrow. Outlive. In the ashes of Earth, evolution is the ultimate weapon. Inspired by...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knock Knock (2015) in Movies
Nov 2, 2017
The acting is just terrible (1 more)
The whole premise is just ridiculous
What the hell was Keanu thinking?
I came across this on Netflix last night and remembered seeing the trailer for it in the cinema at some point in the past. I vaguely remembered wanting to see it if I ever got the chance. What I definitely didn't remember is that the reason I probably never saw it was down to the sheer number of awful reviews it managed to receive. So, here's another one to add to them.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Our Dark Duet in Books
Dec 13, 2017
Great Sequel !
***Possible spoilers below. You’ve been warned***
The plot was off to a pretty slow start in this one. Before I start, I’d have to recommend you read This Savage Song before going to this book. You would need the foundation that was set up in This Savage Song to really benefit and enjoy reading Our Dark Duet.
As mentioned before, the plot was off to a slow start. Kate and August are on both different ends of the spectrum but have changed drastically. They’ve definitely ‘grown up’ so to speak. Kate becomes monster hunter extraordinaire. August leads his own squad in the FTF. Kate’s part of the story was definitely more interesting. Despite trying hard not to warm up to people she manages to have her small group of friends (but of course, shuns them anyway despite one of them trying to reach out to her numerous times). I love this quality in Kate. It makes her so much more realistic and puts her way from the group of those ‘stone cold butt kickers that apparently have no soul’.
That being said about Kate. Oh. Lord. That ending. Kate dying with August nearby got my stomach into knots and twists. I can’t believe it. It was beautifully written though and a suitable ending for her. Kate was pretty much a pariah and a lone wolf. August was one of the few that was able to get to know Kate at a more deeper level. It was only fitting that she meets her end with that one person by her side. Beautifully done.
I didn’t really think the romance scene between Kate and August was necessary. It was a minor filler that didn’t need to be added. I never saw August and Kate that way. They were too different and didn’t have that nice ongoing chemistry together. Fighting partners, yes. Partners in love? No I don’t think so.
So more about characters dying. Am I the only one that felt a punch to the gut when Ilsa died? Ilsa was a character I really loved in these two books. She went down in a blaze of glory though (albeit, a shocked blaze of glory.)
You have to admit, Sloan is one of the better villains I have read in a long while. I like him teaming up with Alice even though villains they are, they are looking out for themselves. He’s creepy, malicious, calculating, and cunning. He’s a perfect villain.
The last half of the book, which was filled with action, blood, explosions and all the good stuff set the pace for the great ending to a wonderfully written duology. I know fans out there are asking for more, as it’s not the end of the adventures for August and Soro. For me, it’s just enough and it’s a perfect ending. Well done Ms Schwab! Now I’m off to read your other works!
The plot was off to a pretty slow start in this one. Before I start, I’d have to recommend you read This Savage Song before going to this book. You would need the foundation that was set up in This Savage Song to really benefit and enjoy reading Our Dark Duet.
As mentioned before, the plot was off to a slow start. Kate and August are on both different ends of the spectrum but have changed drastically. They’ve definitely ‘grown up’ so to speak. Kate becomes monster hunter extraordinaire. August leads his own squad in the FTF. Kate’s part of the story was definitely more interesting. Despite trying hard not to warm up to people she manages to have her small group of friends (but of course, shuns them anyway despite one of them trying to reach out to her numerous times). I love this quality in Kate. It makes her so much more realistic and puts her way from the group of those ‘stone cold butt kickers that apparently have no soul’.
That being said about Kate. Oh. Lord. That ending. Kate dying with August nearby got my stomach into knots and twists. I can’t believe it. It was beautifully written though and a suitable ending for her. Kate was pretty much a pariah and a lone wolf. August was one of the few that was able to get to know Kate at a more deeper level. It was only fitting that she meets her end with that one person by her side. Beautifully done.
I didn’t really think the romance scene between Kate and August was necessary. It was a minor filler that didn’t need to be added. I never saw August and Kate that way. They were too different and didn’t have that nice ongoing chemistry together. Fighting partners, yes. Partners in love? No I don’t think so.
So more about characters dying. Am I the only one that felt a punch to the gut when Ilsa died? Ilsa was a character I really loved in these two books. She went down in a blaze of glory though (albeit, a shocked blaze of glory.)
You have to admit, Sloan is one of the better villains I have read in a long while. I like him teaming up with Alice even though villains they are, they are looking out for themselves. He’s creepy, malicious, calculating, and cunning. He’s a perfect villain.
The last half of the book, which was filled with action, blood, explosions and all the good stuff set the pace for the great ending to a wonderfully written duology. I know fans out there are asking for more, as it’s not the end of the adventures for August and Soro. For me, it’s just enough and it’s a perfect ending. Well done Ms Schwab! Now I’m off to read your other works!
Rachel King (13 KP) rated A Short History of Myth in Books
Feb 11, 2019
For such a short book, I developed quite a strong opinion about the text while reading it. I have been curious about Armstrong's writings for a long time, but this is the first attempt I have made at actually reading anything by her. I have always been a fan of ancient mythology, such as Greek and Egyptian, so this seemed like an easy choice.
In seven chapters, Armstrong takes a simplified stroll through history, focusing on the concept of myth and its impact on civilization. All throughout the book, she attempts to support her claim that a person can believe in myths without believing that the myths are actually true, and that the failure of modern society is by not following her specific edict. While this notion strikes me as absurd, I keep reading because, hey, it's a short book.
While I know only bits and pieces about many of the world's religions, I do know both the history and the holy book of my religion, Christianity. It becomes apparent to me early in the text that she is masking her opinions and interpretations of this religion as actual fact, so I can only imagine how she misconstrues other religions.
Her citations were lacking to me, with many claims going unsupported, others only partially supported, such as citation #84 and #30, and some citations simply not even applying to the specified text, such as citation #87. In citation #55, she claims that the Bible contains a Creation myth in which God brings the world into being by killing a sea monster, but one of the four verses she cites make no reference to anything of the sort (Job 3:12), and the other three (Isaiah 27:1, Job 26:13, Psalm 74:14) that do mention a leviathan cannot be interpreted that way when read in context. Isaiah is describing the end of days, while Job merely says that God created the serpent, and the verse in Psalm is within the context of a song about God rescuing the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery -- no relevancy to Creation. She makes the claim that Paul "was not much interested in Jesus's teachings, which he rarely quotes, or in the events of his earthly life." This claim is easily disproved by examining how Paul's words line up with Jesus's in John 5:21 vs. 1 Corinthians 15:22, Matthew 6:25 vs. Philippians 4:6, and many other passages.
While going through the citations, I got the feeling that the author depended on secondary sources for her information without actually studying the original source of her information. The book struck me as highly opinionated, vague, and too general for the topic being addressed. I have no doubt that there are better and more thorough books available on the topic of myth. I do not believe that I will be reading any more of Armstrong's works in the future.
In seven chapters, Armstrong takes a simplified stroll through history, focusing on the concept of myth and its impact on civilization. All throughout the book, she attempts to support her claim that a person can believe in myths without believing that the myths are actually true, and that the failure of modern society is by not following her specific edict. While this notion strikes me as absurd, I keep reading because, hey, it's a short book.
While I know only bits and pieces about many of the world's religions, I do know both the history and the holy book of my religion, Christianity. It becomes apparent to me early in the text that she is masking her opinions and interpretations of this religion as actual fact, so I can only imagine how she misconstrues other religions.
Her citations were lacking to me, with many claims going unsupported, others only partially supported, such as citation #84 and #30, and some citations simply not even applying to the specified text, such as citation #87. In citation #55, she claims that the Bible contains a Creation myth in which God brings the world into being by killing a sea monster, but one of the four verses she cites make no reference to anything of the sort (Job 3:12), and the other three (Isaiah 27:1, Job 26:13, Psalm 74:14) that do mention a leviathan cannot be interpreted that way when read in context. Isaiah is describing the end of days, while Job merely says that God created the serpent, and the verse in Psalm is within the context of a song about God rescuing the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery -- no relevancy to Creation. She makes the claim that Paul "was not much interested in Jesus's teachings, which he rarely quotes, or in the events of his earthly life." This claim is easily disproved by examining how Paul's words line up with Jesus's in John 5:21 vs. 1 Corinthians 15:22, Matthew 6:25 vs. Philippians 4:6, and many other passages.
While going through the citations, I got the feeling that the author depended on secondary sources for her information without actually studying the original source of her information. The book struck me as highly opinionated, vague, and too general for the topic being addressed. I have no doubt that there are better and more thorough books available on the topic of myth. I do not believe that I will be reading any more of Armstrong's works in the future.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Four Lions (2010) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The fine between comedy and tragedy...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I can remember first hearing about this early in 2010, and was unsure as what to expect. On one hand this could have been a nasty hate film, mocking the wave of Muslim extremism which is taking a firm hold in this country, merely for the entertainment value, or this could be one of the important satires on the subject to date.
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
Paul Kellett (118 KP) rated Shadows of Malice in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2019
Great framework for narrating an adventure (2 more)
Good solo game
Interesting mechanisms
A lot of fiddly tokens (1 more)
Slightly heavy rules
A different take on the adventure board game
Shadows of Malice is an interesting take on the adventure game. Aside from the introduction explaining that you are heroes on a quest to find and activate mystical light wells and defeat the demon and his shadows before they can break through from the shadow realm and capture the wells for evil, there is no fancy artwork, immersive flavour text or even the well known fantasy monsters.
Instead, you get plain cards with simple line art and either just an icon/dice modifier or a short line of text explaining the effect. These cards are items of armour, weapons or other loot, potions, skill masteries, fate effects or abilities. A selection of these make up your character. Again, there are no defined heroes, you can be whatever you fancy being.
When you encounter a monster you roll 3d6 against a chart which will define the creature's species and its strength. Creature types are things like "Avian" and "Reptilian" so you can imagine fighting a dinosaur, a giant eagle or whatever fantastic creature you desire.
This makes the game a great framework to roleplay in. You are never stuck encountering the same things again and again. On the minus side, if you don't have a good imagination, it boils down to just rolling dice and beating target numbers. If you want a game to give you a story to follow, SoM is not that game.
The rules are good, if a little heavy but after a game or two it should soon click and it's mostly straight forward. The designer has recently just uploaded a revised rulebook to BGG which streamlines a number of things.
SoM comes with 4 large landscape hex tiles plus a shadow realm tile and you can choose any number of tiles to arrange in any position around the shadow realm tile. Each tile is divided into a number of smaller hexes with varying terrain and locations printed on them. This is the world you will be exploring and, despite being tiny compared to other game boards, each tile adds about an hour to the play time.
Gameplay involves exploring the land fighting creatures, gaining loot, visiting cities to trade goods or mystic seers to buy potions while searching for the special light wells that you must take control of.
In between player turns, the shadows act. They begin confined to the shadow realm but as the rounds progress, barriers fall and the shadows are more likely to find a way out to manifest in the land. Once there they start searching for the light wells and it's game over if they get to them first .
This makes for a tense cat and mouse with your heroes racing to either get to a well or intercept the demons on route.
Instead, you get plain cards with simple line art and either just an icon/dice modifier or a short line of text explaining the effect. These cards are items of armour, weapons or other loot, potions, skill masteries, fate effects or abilities. A selection of these make up your character. Again, there are no defined heroes, you can be whatever you fancy being.
When you encounter a monster you roll 3d6 against a chart which will define the creature's species and its strength. Creature types are things like "Avian" and "Reptilian" so you can imagine fighting a dinosaur, a giant eagle or whatever fantastic creature you desire.
This makes the game a great framework to roleplay in. You are never stuck encountering the same things again and again. On the minus side, if you don't have a good imagination, it boils down to just rolling dice and beating target numbers. If you want a game to give you a story to follow, SoM is not that game.
The rules are good, if a little heavy but after a game or two it should soon click and it's mostly straight forward. The designer has recently just uploaded a revised rulebook to BGG which streamlines a number of things.
SoM comes with 4 large landscape hex tiles plus a shadow realm tile and you can choose any number of tiles to arrange in any position around the shadow realm tile. Each tile is divided into a number of smaller hexes with varying terrain and locations printed on them. This is the world you will be exploring and, despite being tiny compared to other game boards, each tile adds about an hour to the play time.
Gameplay involves exploring the land fighting creatures, gaining loot, visiting cities to trade goods or mystic seers to buy potions while searching for the special light wells that you must take control of.
In between player turns, the shadows act. They begin confined to the shadow realm but as the rounds progress, barriers fall and the shadows are more likely to find a way out to manifest in the land. Once there they start searching for the light wells and it's game over if they get to them first .
This makes for a tense cat and mouse with your heroes racing to either get to a well or intercept the demons on route.