Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
We left off at the end of John Wick 2 with our lead's imminent excommunication. He's been given an hours grace, in a city that's filled with assassins his odds don't look good, but even for John Wick... bad odds are still pretty good.
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... 😢
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... 😢
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Breathtaking Historical Fiction; Must Read!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
TRIGGER WARNINGS: rape, domestic violence, death, affairs, miscarriage
"You can only go so long pretending, acting as if you're someone you're not. Eventually you must return to who you are, who you were born to be. You can stray from it, try on other roles, other personalities, other beliefs, other lives, but eventually it will catch up with you and you have to return to the only person you can be."
Main Characters:
Beatrice Bordeaux - the main character, married to Harry Bordeaux. A bit of a feminist but it doesn't start showing until the middle to end of the novel. She's got a strong, compassionate, sweet personality. Her development was major and not at all what I was expecting.
Thomas - the lighthouse keeper. He's a simple man, compassionate and patient. Also unbelievably kind to all, no matter ethnicity, class, or gender.
Harry Bordeaux - cocky, self-conceded. Honestly, the most horrible person ever.
Dolly - hat maker who befriends Bea. She's sweet, independent, and an all around feminist.
Elizabeth - laundress for the Montauk Manor, befriends Bea. She's down-to-earth and a loving mother and wife.
"I felt rage and a hot determination side by side and that was something. That alone gave me hope. Something was better than numbness. Something was better than not caring, not dreaming, not daring."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
The story starts off in the year of 1938. The wealthy from New York City always head to the East Coast to an up and coming town called Montauk for the summer. Here, the wives stay in the luxurious Montauk Manor during the weekdays with their children and nannies, planning social events and relaxing, while the men head back to the city to work - only coming back to visit on the weekends.
Beatrice Bordeaux is one of the wives who ends up staying in Montauk for the summer. But she soon learns that her husband, Harry, would actually be leaving with the rest of the men during the week. Beatrice is taken aback, as the main reason why the couple took this vacation was to rekindle their cracking marriage. She was also hoping that the vacation would allow her and Harry to have alone time as she craved being a mother but has been eluded by pregnancy for the past five years.
Beatrice is forced to socialize with the other wives, even though she just wants to relax and read, so that Harry can gain a foothold for his investment interests. He thinks that if Beatrice can become buddy buddy with some of the more known in society women, that he can sizzle his way up to their husbands to get some funds to invest into Montauk. But, Beatrice quickly grows bored of the woman's talk of events that are more self-serving than they are generous. This is where Elizabeth, the Manor's laundress enters.
Elizabeth's down-to-earth nature gives Beatrice nostalgia of her life prior to meeting Harry. The two women befriend each other, even though it would be looked down upon if the other wives of the Manor found out. This doesn't stop Beatrice though.
As the novel progresses, Beatrice becomes disillusioned with her marriage and even finds out that Harry was not being the faithful husband he promised in his vows. The reader can see Harry's regression of interest towards Beatrice throughout the novel, and how he only seems to care about her when she is beside him at social gatherings. This causes Beatrice to start doing the things that she wants. Enter the handsome yet sensitive lighthouse keeper, Thomas.
Thomas is the complete opposite of Harry and as Beatrice's marriage drifts more and more apart, she takes her life into her own hands where she follows what her heart wants. But with the risk she's taking, major consequences that could take lives and ruin social standings follow. This is when Beatrice must decide whether to follow her heart or do what is right according to society.
Montauk is an interesting and beautifully written look back into history when women were expected to do what society told her to do. Questions were not asked, and one must be "happy" that she's being cared for by her husband, because "good wives" waited for orders from their husbands and always did what they wished. The author, Nicola Harrison, does an excellent job with captivating the history and superficial feel of society back in the late 30's. Even the descriptions of the lighthouse, manor, and fishing village created vivid images that circulated within my mind as I read.
Usually, when it comes to Historical Fiction novels, I've found that they can be very predictable. Montauk was not your average Historical Fiction novel, that's for sure. There were twists and turns that I was not expecting and the ending twist threw me for a major loop. The one problem that I do have with the overall story, was the last chapter and epilogue. It lacked the depth and detail that was interwoven throughout the rest of the story. But overall, I was fascinated and enthralled in the story of Montauk.
Character/ Story background and development -
It's there, one hundred percent there. The main character's and the side characters all have the development and background interwoven into the story, waiting to be dug out as you read. All of the development and background that took place within Montauk, actually made this novel great!
Plot -
At first, the plot and story was slow. It could have just been my skewed perspective of not liking Historical Fiction novels, but it eventually picked up; allowing the like/dislike scales to flip. I was really worried that I would DNF Montauk, but once the story started to get more in depth with the characters and background, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster of feels. And I will happily take that ride over and over again.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors that took away from the overall story. There were a slight few littered throughout, but they were so minor and hardly noticeable that it did no harm to count it against the author or publisher.
Enjoyment -
I can for sure say, that I 100% enjoyed every second I spent on Montauk. I don't typically like Historical Fiction novels, but Nicola Harrison does an amazing job not only making sure the information is correct, but the writing is well-thought out.
Overall -
This novel is a sucker punch to the emotions; it's honestly one of those novels that will be cherished forever because the story, the development, the plot, the background, the heartache and pain, it was all there. And it made this a breathtaking novel to read.
Do I recommend? -
159% yes! I highly recommend Montauk by Nicola Harrison.
"With the ocean surrounding me, I feel free and at peace with the world."
TRIGGER WARNINGS: rape, domestic violence, death, affairs, miscarriage
"You can only go so long pretending, acting as if you're someone you're not. Eventually you must return to who you are, who you were born to be. You can stray from it, try on other roles, other personalities, other beliefs, other lives, but eventually it will catch up with you and you have to return to the only person you can be."
Main Characters:
Beatrice Bordeaux - the main character, married to Harry Bordeaux. A bit of a feminist but it doesn't start showing until the middle to end of the novel. She's got a strong, compassionate, sweet personality. Her development was major and not at all what I was expecting.
Thomas - the lighthouse keeper. He's a simple man, compassionate and patient. Also unbelievably kind to all, no matter ethnicity, class, or gender.
Harry Bordeaux - cocky, self-conceded. Honestly, the most horrible person ever.
Dolly - hat maker who befriends Bea. She's sweet, independent, and an all around feminist.
Elizabeth - laundress for the Montauk Manor, befriends Bea. She's down-to-earth and a loving mother and wife.
"I felt rage and a hot determination side by side and that was something. That alone gave me hope. Something was better than numbness. Something was better than not caring, not dreaming, not daring."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
The story starts off in the year of 1938. The wealthy from New York City always head to the East Coast to an up and coming town called Montauk for the summer. Here, the wives stay in the luxurious Montauk Manor during the weekdays with their children and nannies, planning social events and relaxing, while the men head back to the city to work - only coming back to visit on the weekends.
Beatrice Bordeaux is one of the wives who ends up staying in Montauk for the summer. But she soon learns that her husband, Harry, would actually be leaving with the rest of the men during the week. Beatrice is taken aback, as the main reason why the couple took this vacation was to rekindle their cracking marriage. She was also hoping that the vacation would allow her and Harry to have alone time as she craved being a mother but has been eluded by pregnancy for the past five years.
Beatrice is forced to socialize with the other wives, even though she just wants to relax and read, so that Harry can gain a foothold for his investment interests. He thinks that if Beatrice can become buddy buddy with some of the more known in society women, that he can sizzle his way up to their husbands to get some funds to invest into Montauk. But, Beatrice quickly grows bored of the woman's talk of events that are more self-serving than they are generous. This is where Elizabeth, the Manor's laundress enters.
Elizabeth's down-to-earth nature gives Beatrice nostalgia of her life prior to meeting Harry. The two women befriend each other, even though it would be looked down upon if the other wives of the Manor found out. This doesn't stop Beatrice though.
As the novel progresses, Beatrice becomes disillusioned with her marriage and even finds out that Harry was not being the faithful husband he promised in his vows. The reader can see Harry's regression of interest towards Beatrice throughout the novel, and how he only seems to care about her when she is beside him at social gatherings. This causes Beatrice to start doing the things that she wants. Enter the handsome yet sensitive lighthouse keeper, Thomas.
Thomas is the complete opposite of Harry and as Beatrice's marriage drifts more and more apart, she takes her life into her own hands where she follows what her heart wants. But with the risk she's taking, major consequences that could take lives and ruin social standings follow. This is when Beatrice must decide whether to follow her heart or do what is right according to society.
Montauk is an interesting and beautifully written look back into history when women were expected to do what society told her to do. Questions were not asked, and one must be "happy" that she's being cared for by her husband, because "good wives" waited for orders from their husbands and always did what they wished. The author, Nicola Harrison, does an excellent job with captivating the history and superficial feel of society back in the late 30's. Even the descriptions of the lighthouse, manor, and fishing village created vivid images that circulated within my mind as I read.
Usually, when it comes to Historical Fiction novels, I've found that they can be very predictable. Montauk was not your average Historical Fiction novel, that's for sure. There were twists and turns that I was not expecting and the ending twist threw me for a major loop. The one problem that I do have with the overall story, was the last chapter and epilogue. It lacked the depth and detail that was interwoven throughout the rest of the story. But overall, I was fascinated and enthralled in the story of Montauk.
Character/ Story background and development -
It's there, one hundred percent there. The main character's and the side characters all have the development and background interwoven into the story, waiting to be dug out as you read. All of the development and background that took place within Montauk, actually made this novel great!
Plot -
At first, the plot and story was slow. It could have just been my skewed perspective of not liking Historical Fiction novels, but it eventually picked up; allowing the like/dislike scales to flip. I was really worried that I would DNF Montauk, but once the story started to get more in depth with the characters and background, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster of feels. And I will happily take that ride over and over again.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors that took away from the overall story. There were a slight few littered throughout, but they were so minor and hardly noticeable that it did no harm to count it against the author or publisher.
Enjoyment -
I can for sure say, that I 100% enjoyed every second I spent on Montauk. I don't typically like Historical Fiction novels, but Nicola Harrison does an amazing job not only making sure the information is correct, but the writing is well-thought out.
Overall -
This novel is a sucker punch to the emotions; it's honestly one of those novels that will be cherished forever because the story, the development, the plot, the background, the heartache and pain, it was all there. And it made this a breathtaking novel to read.
Do I recommend? -
159% yes! I highly recommend Montauk by Nicola Harrison.
"With the ocean surrounding me, I feel free and at peace with the world."
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Mar 20, 2018
A dazzling, geeky feast for the eyes!
I don't really do books. In the last twenty years or so, I've probably only read one book from start to finish, and that book was Ready Player One. And I absolutely loved it, reading it pretty much non stop until I'd completed it. As anyone else who has read the book knows, there's a hell of a lot in there for someone to try and incorporate into any movie adaptation that gets undertaken, not to mention all the rights needing to be obtained for the vast wealth of famous characters, movies and video games that it features and recreates in such intricate geeky detail. Steven Spielberg is probably about a good a choice as any for tackling something like this though, and to say I was excited heading in to the preview screening of this would be a serious understatement.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.
Death By Rock and Roll by The Pretty Reckless
Album
Rock 'n' roll is a religion. It's a commitment to an ideal, a belief system. The lifestyle and...
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.