Search
Search results
Thinking About it Only Makes it Worse: And Other Lessons from Modern Life
Book
What's wrong with calling a burglar brave? Why are people so f***ing hung up about swearing? Why do...
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Invaders in TV
Mar 15, 2018 (Updated Mar 15, 2018)
One of the classic TV alien invasion shows; the theme tune and the various visual gimmicks (aliens with crooked little fingers who incinerate when killed) are quite well-remembered, along with (possibly) the fact that many of the episodes aren't actually any good.
Larry Cohen's original concept - a paranoid thriller with few overt SF elements - was rapidly abandoned, and Cohen himself had little involvement. The programme is really a victim of the time it was made: episodic storytelling means that the aliens come up with bizarrely different schemes on a weekly basis (weather control, infiltrating industry, man-eating butterflies), and there are nagging problems with the format - it is required that the aliens never just kill Vincent, and that he never manages to get evidence of their activity, either. Some would say that Roy Thinnes' intensely dour performance is not exactly what a show like this needs.
Still, there are some good individual episodes, and the iconography of the show does hang around in your head (it's clearly one of the shows that was a major influence on The X Files). It's a shame this kind of story has since been done to death as you could easily imagine a contemporary Invaders remake being really good (even though the 90s mini-series really wasn't).
Larry Cohen's original concept - a paranoid thriller with few overt SF elements - was rapidly abandoned, and Cohen himself had little involvement. The programme is really a victim of the time it was made: episodic storytelling means that the aliens come up with bizarrely different schemes on a weekly basis (weather control, infiltrating industry, man-eating butterflies), and there are nagging problems with the format - it is required that the aliens never just kill Vincent, and that he never manages to get evidence of their activity, either. Some would say that Roy Thinnes' intensely dour performance is not exactly what a show like this needs.
Still, there are some good individual episodes, and the iconography of the show does hang around in your head (it's clearly one of the shows that was a major influence on The X Files). It's a shame this kind of story has since been done to death as you could easily imagine a contemporary Invaders remake being really good (even though the 90s mini-series really wasn't).
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Mar 24, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
The very first Godzilla movie is essentially an unlicensed remake of Eugene Lourie's The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, with a prehistoric monster roused by atomic testing and going on the rampage - but being a bit worried about atom bombs is clearly not the same thing as actually having them used on your country, for this movie has a dark, traumatised quality to it completely absent from American monster movies.
The sequences with the human characters have that slightly melodramatic, soap-opera-ish feel to them common to many B-movies, but the actual monster attacks are astonishingly bleak and explicit about the massive body-count left in Godzilla's wake. You get a strong sense of a country left reeling, struggling to come to terms with why this catastrophe has been visited on them (the movie reflects the widespread Japanese belief that the country was a victim of the second world war, not an aggressor).
It's quite hard to compare this to most of the subsequent films, for this is obviously a much more serious parable. Some of the melodramatic plotting lets it down a bit, and the climax is rather disappointing given the strength of the earlier set pieces. But it's clear why people are still making movies about Godzilla nearly sixty-five years later.
The sequences with the human characters have that slightly melodramatic, soap-opera-ish feel to them common to many B-movies, but the actual monster attacks are astonishingly bleak and explicit about the massive body-count left in Godzilla's wake. You get a strong sense of a country left reeling, struggling to come to terms with why this catastrophe has been visited on them (the movie reflects the widespread Japanese belief that the country was a victim of the second world war, not an aggressor).
It's quite hard to compare this to most of the subsequent films, for this is obviously a much more serious parable. Some of the melodramatic plotting lets it down a bit, and the climax is rather disappointing given the strength of the earlier set pieces. But it's clear why people are still making movies about Godzilla nearly sixty-five years later.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019
A little lacklustre
I'm a little unsure what to make of this film. Despite it being a fairly close adaptation of the book and quite a short film (less than 2 hours), I found myself feeling ridiculously bored watching this. It just seemed to lack a little bit magic and came across as a bit flat, and isn't nearly as creepy as it could have been. They've opted for obvious jump scares rather than something a little more subtle, and I hate it when films do this. However that said, the physical effects were pretty good.
Acting wise apart from Ellie, I didn't think any of the cast to be particularly noteworthy. Even the usually wonderful John Lithgow was vastly underused. For the most part this sticks rather faithfully to the book, apart from a couple of bigger changes. I'm a little indifferent about these changes, one of which was spoilt by showing in the trailer. And the ending I still can't decide if I like or not. Whilst definitely creepier than the book ending, for me it seems to be doing the characters and their development a disservice.
Overall I came out of this film feeling a bit meh and unimpressed. Maybe its because there isn't a massive difference between this film and the original one, and this is just another unnecessary remake.
Acting wise apart from Ellie, I didn't think any of the cast to be particularly noteworthy. Even the usually wonderful John Lithgow was vastly underused. For the most part this sticks rather faithfully to the book, apart from a couple of bigger changes. I'm a little indifferent about these changes, one of which was spoilt by showing in the trailer. And the ending I still can't decide if I like or not. Whilst definitely creepier than the book ending, for me it seems to be doing the characters and their development a disservice.
Overall I came out of this film feeling a bit meh and unimpressed. Maybe its because there isn't a massive difference between this film and the original one, and this is just another unnecessary remake.
JT (287 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Neil Burger’s remake of 2011 French original The Intouchables pairs Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston in a heartwarming bromance. Ex-con Dell Scott (Hart) is looking to get back on the straight and narrow after a stint behind bars. Needing to prove to his parole officer that he is actively job hunting, he steps off the tough New York streets and accidentally into the penthouse of Philip Lacasse (Cranston), a quadriplegic in need of round the clock care.
It’s not the type of job that Dell is qualified to interview for. His dry sense of humour, however, strikes a chord with Phillip – but not his frosty assistant Yvonne Pendleton (Nicole Kidman).
Hart leaves the majority of his wise-cracking antics at the door and handles the dramatic role to great effect. One or two jokes slip through the net but they feel delivered at the right times – at least we know how a catheter is put in place.
The pair work out each other’s personalities and over time Dell discovers a love for opera while Phillip enjoys the effects of marijuana and Aretha Franklin. It rarely drifts from the storyline of the original, but it doesn’t need to do anything new to make it enjoyable.
It’s not the type of job that Dell is qualified to interview for. His dry sense of humour, however, strikes a chord with Phillip – but not his frosty assistant Yvonne Pendleton (Nicole Kidman).
Hart leaves the majority of his wise-cracking antics at the door and handles the dramatic role to great effect. One or two jokes slip through the net but they feel delivered at the right times – at least we know how a catheter is put in place.
The pair work out each other’s personalities and over time Dell discovers a love for opera while Phillip enjoys the effects of marijuana and Aretha Franklin. It rarely drifts from the storyline of the original, but it doesn’t need to do anything new to make it enjoyable.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
10.0
Rate It
Book
Around the world in Britain, the United States, Asia and the Middle East, there are people with...
Of Spice and Men (A Pancake House Mystery Book 3)
2.0
Rate It
Book
Lights. Camera. Murder? Wildwood Cove’s star turn is soured by a sneaky killer in this delicious...
cozy mystery romance romantic mystery adult fiction
Body Snatchers (1993)
6.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
Don’t sleep. Don’t ever sleep. That’s when it happens. That’s when tentacles leave the alien...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Oct 11, 2018
Haters gotta hate, but I liked it
After another successful "reboot", Rob Zombie tries his hand at a sequel to his version of Michael Myers.
Haunted by the death of his mother, Michael doesn't know what to do with himself other than continue his murderous rampage in pursuit of his sister, Laurie Strode.
Dr. Loomis has capitalized on his Michael encounters in penning a tell-all book which reveals all the "gory" details.
Yeah this movie is extremely violent at times and sometimes goes in various directions, but why all the negative reviews. IMDb has many, many of them. There are certainly lots of crappier horror movies out there. Maybe because expectations were high after the remake and this one went too far off the proven trail.
I was entertained mostly because I have watched all 10 Halloween movies over the last two weeks and this one I could honestly say I didn't know where it was going.
Haunted by the death of his mother, Michael doesn't know what to do with himself other than continue his murderous rampage in pursuit of his sister, Laurie Strode.
Dr. Loomis has capitalized on his Michael encounters in penning a tell-all book which reveals all the "gory" details.
Yeah this movie is extremely violent at times and sometimes goes in various directions, but why all the negative reviews. IMDb has many, many of them. There are certainly lots of crappier horror movies out there. Maybe because expectations were high after the remake and this one went too far off the proven trail.
I was entertained mostly because I have watched all 10 Halloween movies over the last two weeks and this one I could honestly say I didn't know where it was going.
21st century remake of the cult post-apocalyptic drama is supposedly based on the novelisation of the 70s show, not the show itself, but one gets the impression this claim is just there as a legal requirement: in the early episodes, at least, this is recognisably the same story.
That said, New Survivors is notably more suburban and less concerned with the realities of post-apocalyptic survival than with making grand statements about family and love through the medium of slightly soapy and soft-centred drama. It's a BBC genre drama from the late 2000s, so the characters are more diverse, everything is rather sentimental, and supplies of subtlety do not appear to have made it through the catastrophe. Still, it's kind of watchable, especially if you can put the original show out of your mind, and in the second series in particular one can discern an interesting subtext suggesting the programme is partly motivated by anger aimed at the culprits of the financial disaster of 2008. Second series concludes on a cliffhanger of sorts, so you can have fun making up your own ending for the story.
That said, New Survivors is notably more suburban and less concerned with the realities of post-apocalyptic survival than with making grand statements about family and love through the medium of slightly soapy and soft-centred drama. It's a BBC genre drama from the late 2000s, so the characters are more diverse, everything is rather sentimental, and supplies of subtlety do not appear to have made it through the catastrophe. Still, it's kind of watchable, especially if you can put the original show out of your mind, and in the second series in particular one can discern an interesting subtext suggesting the programme is partly motivated by anger aimed at the culprits of the financial disaster of 2008. Second series concludes on a cliffhanger of sorts, so you can have fun making up your own ending for the story.