Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Stranger Game in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Book-Review-Banner-14.png"/>;
When Rebecca's boyfriend Ezra goes missing, she knows something is not quite right. But when she reports it to the police, they don't seem to really care. They suspect he's been playing ''The Stranger Game'', a game that went viral, where people take social media behaviour on the streets and start following each other in real life.
<b><i>The rules of the game are simple:</i></b>
<i>* You must choose a random person.
* You cannot make contact with other people (or tell them you're playing the game)
* You mustn't follow the same person twice.</i>
But as the game spreads, the rules start to change, and people start disappearing without a trace.
In hope that she she can find her man, Rebecca starts playing the game herself. But the more she gets involved, the bigger the risk is.
<b>When I read the synopsis about ''The Stranger Game'' by Peter Gadol, I knew I had to read the book. It is a plot that intrigues me and I am always up for reading more psychological thrillers.
But this book's delivery was weak. I found the story very slow and unintriguing, with no exceptional plot twists and with a disappointing and rather predictable ending. </b>
Rebecca was a difficult character to begin with. The writing in the chapters felt different, even though it was the same character's point of view. I was left very confused. I just wanted to get a better glance at ''The Stranger Game''. And I did, but the game scenario was so much different compared to the synopsis - which was only slightly annoying. But to top up the annoyance, there was a huge lack of mystery and suspense throughout the book. I just stopped caring whether Rebecca was going to find Ezra or not. I did not care whether her life was in danger. I was that unbothered.
<b><i>On a positive note,</i></b>
I did enjoy the psychological theme and people's behaviour. I always want to know more about how and why people behave in a certain way and this book definitely opened some interesting discussion points.
<b><i>Do I recommend it? Yes.
If you like human psychology and behaviour, this is a good book to have on your stack. But will this be the next mystery and suspense hit? Probably not...</i></b>
Thank you to team at HQ (Harper Collins Publishers), for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
<i>''The Stranger Game'' comes out on 5th September 2019.</i>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Book-Review-Banner-14.png"/>;
When Rebecca's boyfriend Ezra goes missing, she knows something is not quite right. But when she reports it to the police, they don't seem to really care. They suspect he's been playing ''The Stranger Game'', a game that went viral, where people take social media behaviour on the streets and start following each other in real life.
<b><i>The rules of the game are simple:</i></b>
<i>* You must choose a random person.
* You cannot make contact with other people (or tell them you're playing the game)
* You mustn't follow the same person twice.</i>
But as the game spreads, the rules start to change, and people start disappearing without a trace.
In hope that she she can find her man, Rebecca starts playing the game herself. But the more she gets involved, the bigger the risk is.
<b>When I read the synopsis about ''The Stranger Game'' by Peter Gadol, I knew I had to read the book. It is a plot that intrigues me and I am always up for reading more psychological thrillers.
But this book's delivery was weak. I found the story very slow and unintriguing, with no exceptional plot twists and with a disappointing and rather predictable ending. </b>
Rebecca was a difficult character to begin with. The writing in the chapters felt different, even though it was the same character's point of view. I was left very confused. I just wanted to get a better glance at ''The Stranger Game''. And I did, but the game scenario was so much different compared to the synopsis - which was only slightly annoying. But to top up the annoyance, there was a huge lack of mystery and suspense throughout the book. I just stopped caring whether Rebecca was going to find Ezra or not. I did not care whether her life was in danger. I was that unbothered.
<b><i>On a positive note,</i></b>
I did enjoy the psychological theme and people's behaviour. I always want to know more about how and why people behave in a certain way and this book definitely opened some interesting discussion points.
<b><i>Do I recommend it? Yes.
If you like human psychology and behaviour, this is a good book to have on your stack. But will this be the next mystery and suspense hit? Probably not...</i></b>
Thank you to team at HQ (Harper Collins Publishers), for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
<i>''The Stranger Game'' comes out on 5th September 2019.</i>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys II, what ya gonna do? Go and watch Bad Boys For Life, that's what you're gonna do.
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Picking up after the harrowing events of book one, NO MERCY finds Officer Ellery Hathaway on leave. She's going to mandated therapy, attending a group for victims of violent crime. This isn't exactly Ellery's "cup of tea," as she's not one for sharing her feelings. In group, she meets Myra, a victim of a deadly fire years ago that killed her young son. Ellery quickly gets caught up in Myra's case and becomes convinced that the wrong man--who is up for parole--was convicted of the crime. Another group member, Wendy, was brutally raped, and she asks Ellery for help finding her rapist, who is still on the loose, leaving Wendy a shadow of her once vibrant self. Ellery turns to her friend, FBI agent Reed Markham, the man who rescued her so many years ago. Reed comes, of course; he can never say no to Ellery. But Reed is also in line for a big promotion, and his boss doesn't want him near Ellery. As the two start digging, they uncover secrets: lots of them.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Honey-Don't List in Books
Mar 26, 2020
Carey Douglas is looking forward to a much-needed vacation. She's spent nearly ten years serving as an assistant--and much more--to Melissa Tripp, one half of Melissa and Rusty Tripp. The Tripps are co-owners of the store Comb+Honey and best known for their home renovation TV shows and books. They have a new solo show, Home Sweet Home, about to launch on Netflix, accompanied by a book about their happy marriage. The only issue: Melissa and Rusty can't stand each other. So instead of giving their assistants--Carey and Rusty's assistant/engineer, James--a break while they go on book tour, the couple's behavior requires they be babysat so their mutual self-hatred does not go viral. Suddenly Carey and James find themselves stuck together on a tour bus, watching over two very irritable and often hateful people. James needs the engineering contacts and a job where everything is on the up-and-up--something his last couldn't offer. Carey requires health insurance and believes Melissa needs her more than anyone else. And who knows, the more time James and Carey spend together, the more they might wind up finding some good in all this mess.
"You wouldn't know from scrolling through their idyllic Instagram feed that Melly and Rusty aren't quite as sweet on each other anymore. Looking back, I'm not really sure when they decided their marriage mattered less than their brand."
This was a fun and engaging Christina Lauren read. I'd rank Carey and James as one of their good couples, though not perhaps in the great category. They are cute, however, with plenty of chemistry and lots of sexy banter.
"Your only job for the next ten days is to keep the Tripps from falling apart."
I enjoyed the HGTV feel of this book and the Tripps had a "Chip and Joanna Gaines" feel, if the Gaines went off the rails, or we were able to see their dark side. Things get a little repetitive in the middle, as the Tripps fight and Carey and James struggle with the "oh but we need our jobs" piece, but overall the book is humorous, tender, and fun. Sure, Carey and James are desperately thrown together and you have NO IDEA what will happen, right? It's all good; it's why I love a good romance. Their journey is enjoyable and the side characters--mainly the Tripps--are, well, a trip. Let me tell you, Melissa (Melly) is downright scary at times.
We also get the story told from both Carey and James' point of view, which I like, plus some police report excerpts (oh yeah) and parts of blogger and tabloid pieces. Our fabulous duo does a great job at putting us in the middle of the Tripps' scandal, and one of my favorite things about this one was that not only did we get to enjoy Carey and James' romance, but we felt like we were a part of the trainwreck sensation that was Melly and Rusty.
Overall, this is a fun read with a sexy romance and enjoyable characters. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 stars here.
"You wouldn't know from scrolling through their idyllic Instagram feed that Melly and Rusty aren't quite as sweet on each other anymore. Looking back, I'm not really sure when they decided their marriage mattered less than their brand."
This was a fun and engaging Christina Lauren read. I'd rank Carey and James as one of their good couples, though not perhaps in the great category. They are cute, however, with plenty of chemistry and lots of sexy banter.
"Your only job for the next ten days is to keep the Tripps from falling apart."
I enjoyed the HGTV feel of this book and the Tripps had a "Chip and Joanna Gaines" feel, if the Gaines went off the rails, or we were able to see their dark side. Things get a little repetitive in the middle, as the Tripps fight and Carey and James struggle with the "oh but we need our jobs" piece, but overall the book is humorous, tender, and fun. Sure, Carey and James are desperately thrown together and you have NO IDEA what will happen, right? It's all good; it's why I love a good romance. Their journey is enjoyable and the side characters--mainly the Tripps--are, well, a trip. Let me tell you, Melissa (Melly) is downright scary at times.
We also get the story told from both Carey and James' point of view, which I like, plus some police report excerpts (oh yeah) and parts of blogger and tabloid pieces. Our fabulous duo does a great job at putting us in the middle of the Tripps' scandal, and one of my favorite things about this one was that not only did we get to enjoy Carey and James' romance, but we felt like we were a part of the trainwreck sensation that was Melly and Rusty.
Overall, this is a fun read with a sexy romance and enjoyable characters. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 stars here.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
The Ludicrous Laws of Old London
Book
London abounds with all manner of ludicrous laws, and not all of these curious statutes have been...
Vehicle Games for little kids! Car Games Toddlers
Games and Education
App
Vroom! Vroom! Do you have a little driver that loves vehicles like cars, fire engines, trucks,...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Targets (1968) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Targeting Frankenstein: A Horror Icon
Targets- is a very suspenseful film that stars a old boris Karloff. His performance in this film is different. Usually he is type-cast in a horror movie. Targets is not the cast, its a more serious role for Karloff and I liked it alot. He is dramatic in Targets. It was Karloff's last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
