Search
PE
Pindar's Eyes: Visual and Material Culture in Epinician Poetry
Book
Pindar's Eyes is a ground-breaking interdisciplinary exploration of the interactions between Greek...
Representing War and Violence, 1250-1600
Joanna Bellis and Laura Slater
Book
War and violence took many forms in medieval and early modern Europe, from political and territorial...
Darren (1599 KP) rated St. Agatha (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Mary is a pregnant young lady with a tragic past which saw her running from her abusive father, she seeks refuge to have her child, which sees her in a convent, only for this to be a worse hell than her previous life, she is stuck with the abusive religious nuns that want her baby, even renaming her Agatha. Mother Superior runs the convent, she has strict rules and expects the women to follow these rules or face punishment, she does however want the children to be born, which means the punishments won’t put the babies at risks, she has women under her control, but when it comes to Mary she must go to new extremes to keep her position of power in place. Catherine is one of the few women that offers Mary any help within the walls, she is also pregnant further along than Mary, meaning the two teaming up would mean more risk for her. We do have other girls that are under different levels of control, while we also have other nuns who are trying to prove their level of strictness to the Mother Superior.
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101
Ross (3284 KP) rated Abducted in Plain Sight (2017) in Movies
Mar 4, 2019
Such a bizarre story, sensitively told
The story of how the Broberg family sleepwalked into their eldest daughter being abducted is truly bizarre. I think a large part of their logical progression and how they didn't react to the red flag warnings stems from their being part of the church of latter-day saints and how the community aspect of the church would give them a false sense of security. I think this was played down quite a lot, possibly being sensitive not to criticise religious beliefs, but does tend to sensationalise the story a little.
The first half of this documentary brilliantly shows how a series of truly weird decisions by the family allowed a manipulative, charismatic man to gradually isolate their daughter from them and allow him to abduct her. There are some moments when you can't help but shout "WTF" (the full version) at the TV.
The second half continues this theme but I felt like I was past the point of disbelief and stupid decision upon stupid decision had left me numb to it.
The story is sensitively told, by the family themselves (and at times by "B", the abductor in his own words). While their actions are clearly stupid and irresponsible, their thought processes are clearly explained and they admit themselves how stupid they were. The family come across as a lovely, sensitive, emotional group that went through a terrible time in the mid-70s.
Some unpleasant sections when it gets into the detail of the abduction, which serve as a real wake-up after the somewhat comedic elements leading up to the abduction.
The first half of this documentary brilliantly shows how a series of truly weird decisions by the family allowed a manipulative, charismatic man to gradually isolate their daughter from them and allow him to abduct her. There are some moments when you can't help but shout "WTF" (the full version) at the TV.
The second half continues this theme but I felt like I was past the point of disbelief and stupid decision upon stupid decision had left me numb to it.
The story is sensitively told, by the family themselves (and at times by "B", the abductor in his own words). While their actions are clearly stupid and irresponsible, their thought processes are clearly explained and they admit themselves how stupid they were. The family come across as a lovely, sensitive, emotional group that went through a terrible time in the mid-70s.
Some unpleasant sections when it gets into the detail of the abduction, which serve as a real wake-up after the somewhat comedic elements leading up to the abduction.
Islamic Financial Economy and Islamic Banking
Masudul Alam Choudhury and M. Ishaq Bhatti
Book
Islamic Financial Economy and Islamic Banking, is a thorough, deeply conceptual, analytical and...
TA
The Antagonist Principle: John Henry Newman and the Paradox of Personality
Book
The Antagonist Principle is a critical examination of the works and sometimes controversial public...
Conversations: Volume 2
Jorge Luis Borges and Osvaldo Ferrari
Book
Recorded during Jorge Luis Borges's final years, this second volume of his conversations with...
The Painted Closet of Lady Anne Bacon Drury
Book
Lady Anne Bacon Drury (1572-1624) was the granddaughter and niece of two of England's Lord Keepers...
Moby Dick
Herman Melville, Hershel Parker and Harrison Hayford
3.0
Rate It
Book
A section of "Whaling and Whalecraft" features prose and graphics by John B. Putnam, a sample of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.