Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
The Lighthouse is destined to be one of those polarizing art house films that splits opinion straight down the middle, and it's easy to see why. I found it captivating, but I imagine some people would find it boring. I found it relatively haunting, but I imagine some people found it pretentious, and that's ok, I can see why.
It's bleak and minimalist, boasting a cast of two for 98% of the films runtime, it's completely open for interpretation, and poses more questions than it answers, and after a fair bit of thought, I think I actually loved it.
Willem Defoe and Robert Pattinson are unarguably fantastic. There is nothing less than full commitment to what they're trying to do.
Robert Egger's shooting style is great as well. The whole movie is presented in a black and white 4:3 ratio. Some of the grainy framing shots littered throughout echo of old 40s and 50s horror classics, and everything else presented to us feels fresh and new, whilst being fed undertones of Greek mythology and H.P. Lovecraft.
The script is modest and subtle with flashes of intensity, a particular highlight is Willem Defoe's terrifying monologue after his cooking is criticized...
As for the plot, it's anything but straightforward. As I said, open for interpretation, but what starts off as a slightly off-feeling drama snowballs dramatically into something quite disturbing and tense. This is aided by a sporadic but great music score, and the constant noise of the lighthouse engine room (reminded me of the logging mill from Twin Peaks!)
The Lighthouse certainly isn't for everyone, but if you like a challenge with your horror then make sure you check it out.
It's bleak and minimalist, boasting a cast of two for 98% of the films runtime, it's completely open for interpretation, and poses more questions than it answers, and after a fair bit of thought, I think I actually loved it.
Willem Defoe and Robert Pattinson are unarguably fantastic. There is nothing less than full commitment to what they're trying to do.
Robert Egger's shooting style is great as well. The whole movie is presented in a black and white 4:3 ratio. Some of the grainy framing shots littered throughout echo of old 40s and 50s horror classics, and everything else presented to us feels fresh and new, whilst being fed undertones of Greek mythology and H.P. Lovecraft.
The script is modest and subtle with flashes of intensity, a particular highlight is Willem Defoe's terrifying monologue after his cooking is criticized...
As for the plot, it's anything but straightforward. As I said, open for interpretation, but what starts off as a slightly off-feeling drama snowballs dramatically into something quite disturbing and tense. This is aided by a sporadic but great music score, and the constant noise of the lighthouse engine room (reminded me of the logging mill from Twin Peaks!)
The Lighthouse certainly isn't for everyone, but if you like a challenge with your horror then make sure you check it out.
Sam Fell recommended George Washington (2000) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Horror Express (1972) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
Christopher Lee (1 more)
Peter Cushing
The Terror Express
Horror Express- is a great movie. The horror, the terror, the gory, the acting, all great.
The plot: Alexander Saxton (Christopher Lee), a brilliant British anthropologist researching in the Russian Far East, boards the Trans-Siberian Express with his latest discovery, a frozen specimen he hopes to prove is the missing link. But en route to Europe, passengers begin to turn up dead, and terror engulfs the train as Saxton and his partner, Dr. Wells (Peter Cushing), struggle to contain a mysterious -- and increasingly murderous -- force with the power to control minds.
According to Martin, the film was made because a producer obtained a train set from Nicholas and Alexandra (1971). "He came up with the idea of writing a script just so he would be able to use this prop," said Martin. "Now at that time, Phil was in the habit of buying up loads of short stories to adapt into screenplays, and the story for Horror Express was originally based on a tale written by a little-known American scriptwriter and playwright."
Securing Lee and Cushing was a coup for Gordon, since it lent an atmosphere reminiscent of Hammer Films, many of which starred both of the actors. When Cushing arrived in Madrid to begin work on the picture, however, he was still distraught over the recent death of his wife, and announced to Gordon that he could not do the film. With Gordon desperate over the idea of losing one of his important stars, Lee stepped in and put Cushing at ease simply by talking to his old friend about some of their previous work together. Cushing changed his mind and stayed on.
Its a great movie.
The plot: Alexander Saxton (Christopher Lee), a brilliant British anthropologist researching in the Russian Far East, boards the Trans-Siberian Express with his latest discovery, a frozen specimen he hopes to prove is the missing link. But en route to Europe, passengers begin to turn up dead, and terror engulfs the train as Saxton and his partner, Dr. Wells (Peter Cushing), struggle to contain a mysterious -- and increasingly murderous -- force with the power to control minds.
According to Martin, the film was made because a producer obtained a train set from Nicholas and Alexandra (1971). "He came up with the idea of writing a script just so he would be able to use this prop," said Martin. "Now at that time, Phil was in the habit of buying up loads of short stories to adapt into screenplays, and the story for Horror Express was originally based on a tale written by a little-known American scriptwriter and playwright."
Securing Lee and Cushing was a coup for Gordon, since it lent an atmosphere reminiscent of Hammer Films, many of which starred both of the actors. When Cushing arrived in Madrid to begin work on the picture, however, he was still distraught over the recent death of his wife, and announced to Gordon that he could not do the film. With Gordon desperate over the idea of losing one of his important stars, Lee stepped in and put Cushing at ease simply by talking to his old friend about some of their previous work together. Cushing changed his mind and stayed on.
Its a great movie.
Edgar Wright recommended Head (1968) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
It might be playing hard to get, but there's plenty to love about Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 if you know where to look.
A lot of it's strength lies in its stellar cast once again. All the key players from the first movie are back, with a whole heap of new faces, and expanded roles for side characters. New cast members include Kurt fucking Russell as none other than Ego the Living Planet, which is wild in itself, Pom Klementieff as Mantis, as well as smaller roles for Sylvester Stallone and Elizabeth Debicki. Bigger roles for Karen Gillan and Michael Rooker are also welcome.
In terms of material, it's brimming with Easter eggs, and hints at what's to come in the future - Adam Warlock, the original Guardians roster, The Watchers, Celestials - it has some truly wonderful moments for fans of the comics.
The plot is fun enough, and all leads to the subject of family and parenthood. It has some touching scenes amongst all the space battles. My main issue is with the comedy - the jokes and quips in Vol. 2 are absolutely relentless. Where as the first movie, and plenty of other MCU entries, manage to strike a fine balance in the more comedic side of things, Vol. 2 just throws everything and the kitchen sink at the script hoping that something will stick the landing, and there are plenty of funny lines here, but there's an equal amount of jokes that miss the mark. It becomes a little tiresome, and is the exact same issue I had with Deadpool 2!
However, despite its flaws, Vol. 2 is still a lot of fun, and another decent entry into the cosmic MCU canon, and it's moving closing scene, set to Cat Stevens "Father & Son" is one of my favourites in the entire franchise. Also, Baby Groot.
A lot of it's strength lies in its stellar cast once again. All the key players from the first movie are back, with a whole heap of new faces, and expanded roles for side characters. New cast members include Kurt fucking Russell as none other than Ego the Living Planet, which is wild in itself, Pom Klementieff as Mantis, as well as smaller roles for Sylvester Stallone and Elizabeth Debicki. Bigger roles for Karen Gillan and Michael Rooker are also welcome.
In terms of material, it's brimming with Easter eggs, and hints at what's to come in the future - Adam Warlock, the original Guardians roster, The Watchers, Celestials - it has some truly wonderful moments for fans of the comics.
The plot is fun enough, and all leads to the subject of family and parenthood. It has some touching scenes amongst all the space battles. My main issue is with the comedy - the jokes and quips in Vol. 2 are absolutely relentless. Where as the first movie, and plenty of other MCU entries, manage to strike a fine balance in the more comedic side of things, Vol. 2 just throws everything and the kitchen sink at the script hoping that something will stick the landing, and there are plenty of funny lines here, but there's an equal amount of jokes that miss the mark. It becomes a little tiresome, and is the exact same issue I had with Deadpool 2!
However, despite its flaws, Vol. 2 is still a lot of fun, and another decent entry into the cosmic MCU canon, and it's moving closing scene, set to Cat Stevens "Father & Son" is one of my favourites in the entire franchise. Also, Baby Groot.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Scanners (1981) in Movies
Sep 7, 2020
I'm Gonna Suck Your Brain Dry
Scanners- is anethor excellent film directed by Cronenberg. I love his style which is sci-fi mixed with horror. With disturbing, gory effects.
The plot: Scanners are men and women born with incredible telepathic and telekinetic powers. There are many who exercise the benefits of their special gifts in a safe and judicious manner. However, there is a group of renegade scanners who plan to create a race that will rule the world.
In the film, "scanners" are people with unusual telepathic and telekinetic powers. ConSec, a purveyor of weaponry and security systems, searches out scanners to use them for its own purposes. The film's plot concerns the attempt by Darryl Revok (Ironside), a renegade scanner, to wage a war against ConSec. Another scanner, Cameron Vale (Lack), is dispatched by ConSec to stop Revok.
Writer and director David Cronenberg has called Scanners one of his most difficult films to make, citing an incomplete script when the shooting schedule commenced, as well as a lack of constructed sets.
The iconic head explosion scene was the product of trial and error, eventually settling on a plaster skull and a gelatin exterior packed with "latex scraps, some wax, and just bits and bobs and a lot of stringy stuff that we figured would fly through the air a little better" as well as "leftover burgers." When other explosive techniques failed to give the desired effect, special effects supervisor Gary Zeller told the crew to roll cameras and get inside the trucks with doors and windows closed; he then lay down behind the dummy and shot it in the back of the head with a shotgun.
Michael Ironside is a excellent job as the villian.
Its a excellent sci-fi body horror film.
The plot: Scanners are men and women born with incredible telepathic and telekinetic powers. There are many who exercise the benefits of their special gifts in a safe and judicious manner. However, there is a group of renegade scanners who plan to create a race that will rule the world.
In the film, "scanners" are people with unusual telepathic and telekinetic powers. ConSec, a purveyor of weaponry and security systems, searches out scanners to use them for its own purposes. The film's plot concerns the attempt by Darryl Revok (Ironside), a renegade scanner, to wage a war against ConSec. Another scanner, Cameron Vale (Lack), is dispatched by ConSec to stop Revok.
Writer and director David Cronenberg has called Scanners one of his most difficult films to make, citing an incomplete script when the shooting schedule commenced, as well as a lack of constructed sets.
The iconic head explosion scene was the product of trial and error, eventually settling on a plaster skull and a gelatin exterior packed with "latex scraps, some wax, and just bits and bobs and a lot of stringy stuff that we figured would fly through the air a little better" as well as "leftover burgers." When other explosive techniques failed to give the desired effect, special effects supervisor Gary Zeller told the crew to roll cameras and get inside the trucks with doors and windows closed; he then lay down behind the dummy and shot it in the back of the head with a shotgun.
Michael Ironside is a excellent job as the villian.
Its a excellent sci-fi body horror film.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Deadly Friend (1986) in Movies
Sep 14, 2020
Death By Basktetball
Deadly Friend- is a good movie. The best sence is the basketball kill. It was gory, horrorfying and terrorfying. Other than that this film is basically Frankenstien but instead of a monster its a robot. Which does turn into a monster.
The plot: Its plot follows a teenage computer prodigy who implants a robot's hardrive into the brain of his teenage neighbor after she is pronounced brain dead; the experiment proves successful, but she swiftly begins a killing spree in their neighborhood.
Originally, the film was a sci-fi thriller without any graphic scenes, with a bigger focus on plot and character development and a dark love story centering around the two main characters, which were not typical aspects of Craven's previous films. After Craven's original cut was shown to a test audience by Warner Bros., the audience criticized the lack of graphic, bloody violence and gore that Craven's other films included. Warner Bros. executive vice president Mark Canton and the film's producers then demanded script re-writes and re-shoots, which included filming gorier death scenes and nightmare sequences, similar to the ones from Craven's previous film, A Nightmare on Elm Street. Due to studio imposed re-shoots and re-editing, the film was drastically altered in post-production, losing much of the original plot and more scenes between characters, while other scenes, including more grisly deaths and a new ending, were added. This version was criticized by test audiences for containing too much graphic, bloody violence and gore.
In April 2014, an online petition for the release of the original cut was made.
Its a intresting movie see it for yourself and see if you like it.
The plot: Its plot follows a teenage computer prodigy who implants a robot's hardrive into the brain of his teenage neighbor after she is pronounced brain dead; the experiment proves successful, but she swiftly begins a killing spree in their neighborhood.
Originally, the film was a sci-fi thriller without any graphic scenes, with a bigger focus on plot and character development and a dark love story centering around the two main characters, which were not typical aspects of Craven's previous films. After Craven's original cut was shown to a test audience by Warner Bros., the audience criticized the lack of graphic, bloody violence and gore that Craven's other films included. Warner Bros. executive vice president Mark Canton and the film's producers then demanded script re-writes and re-shoots, which included filming gorier death scenes and nightmare sequences, similar to the ones from Craven's previous film, A Nightmare on Elm Street. Due to studio imposed re-shoots and re-editing, the film was drastically altered in post-production, losing much of the original plot and more scenes between characters, while other scenes, including more grisly deaths and a new ending, were added. This version was criticized by test audiences for containing too much graphic, bloody violence and gore.
In April 2014, an online petition for the release of the original cut was made.
Its a intresting movie see it for yourself and see if you like it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Tower of London (1962) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Haunted Memories
Did you know that Vincent Price appeared in the 1939 version of "Tower of London" with Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone. I thought that was intresting. Anyways this version adds the horror element to it mixed with historical drama and it does a good job. The drama added with the horror combines well.
The plot: In 15th-century England, Richard III (Vincent Price) desperately wants the throne, but his ailing brother, King Edward IV (Justice Watson), instead bestows it upon his other sibling, Clarence (Richard McCauly). This sends Richard into a homicidal rage, resulting in Clarence's murder and the deaths and torture of many others who could keep the crown from the crazed man. But as the mayhem continues, Richard's sanity slips, and the ghosts of the murdered men begin to haunt the beleaguered royal.
Aside from the historical setting, the movie is not connected to the 1939 film of the same name, starring Price, Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff.
The movie was meant to be the first of a three-picture contract between Corman and Small. Corman later called the movie:
"The most foolish thing I’ve ever filmed. Every night he [Small] would come to see me or call me. The script was changed, reworked without my consent. Lots of strange things were happening all the time, and finally I asked him to tear up our contract. He realized he wouldn’t get anything worthwhile out of me and tore it up. I have nothing against Eddie Small. He’s an old man who had lots of success during the thirties, and who doesn’t know that times have changed".
I thought it was a really good film.
The plot: In 15th-century England, Richard III (Vincent Price) desperately wants the throne, but his ailing brother, King Edward IV (Justice Watson), instead bestows it upon his other sibling, Clarence (Richard McCauly). This sends Richard into a homicidal rage, resulting in Clarence's murder and the deaths and torture of many others who could keep the crown from the crazed man. But as the mayhem continues, Richard's sanity slips, and the ghosts of the murdered men begin to haunt the beleaguered royal.
Aside from the historical setting, the movie is not connected to the 1939 film of the same name, starring Price, Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff.
The movie was meant to be the first of a three-picture contract between Corman and Small. Corman later called the movie:
"The most foolish thing I’ve ever filmed. Every night he [Small] would come to see me or call me. The script was changed, reworked without my consent. Lots of strange things were happening all the time, and finally I asked him to tear up our contract. He realized he wouldn’t get anything worthwhile out of me and tore it up. I have nothing against Eddie Small. He’s an old man who had lots of success during the thirties, and who doesn’t know that times have changed".
I thought it was a really good film.
Darren Fisher (2465 KP) rated Killer's Moon (1978) in Movies
Dec 11, 2020 (Updated Dec 11, 2020)
Classic low budget British horror
I love my bonkers films and this demented British horror from Alan Birkinshaw certainly is up there. Four lunatics escape from a cottage (yep, not even a mental institution) whilst dosed up on LSD provided by the psychiatrists (it's a experiment in which said nutters think they are only dreaming - so whatever they do whilst tripping holds no consequence). Meanwhile, in the middle of nowhere, a bus full of schoolgirls brakes down. With no other choice the bus driver goes lookin for help whilst the teachers and girls seek refuge in a desolate hotel. As the escaped lunatics make their murderous way across country they come across the hotel. Once inside they begin tormenting, raping and decimating the cast. It's grimy, sleazy and very non-politically correct. I certainly can't imagine it getting made in todays times. The infrequent gore scenes are more 'Carry On...' style than gruesome, the special effects are amateur, accompanied with goofy sound effects. What carries the film along is the dialogue. Co-written with the directors sister Fay Weldon, the script is jaw droppingly unbelievable, unintentionally hilarious and mind-bogglingly bizarre. The most infamous quote comes after one school girl has been raped by one of the lunatics and pretty much sets the tone of what you are watching...
"Look, you were only raped, as long as you don't tell anyone about it you'll be alright. You pretend it never happened, I pretend I never saw it and if we ever get out of this alive, well, maybe we'll both live to be wives and mothers"
Just one of many delicious quotes from the film I hasten to add. Guaranteed trash gold. Highly recommended.
"Look, you were only raped, as long as you don't tell anyone about it you'll be alright. You pretend it never happened, I pretend I never saw it and if we ever get out of this alive, well, maybe we'll both live to be wives and mothers"
Just one of many delicious quotes from the film I hasten to add. Guaranteed trash gold. Highly recommended.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Close Encounters of the Girl Kind (Geekhood, #1) in Books
Jun 24, 2019
Read my original review on my blog: https://bookmarkedreading.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/book-review-geekhood/
Geekhood: Close Encounters of the Girl Kind is a greatly humorous, relatable book about the struggles of a 14-year-old Geek.
Archie, a true Geek to his core, has a lot going on in his life. His parents are divorced, his step-dad is a Tosser, the only thing his friends are good at is the Game, and, to top it all off, he is struck by surprise by a Close Encounter with a Beautiful Goth.
After Sarah tries to help him battle his problems and insecurities, Archie replaces his snarky interior monologue with the voice of his psychic self, trudging alone along the path to psychic alignment. But things don't go quite as he hopes, and he soon makes a serious mess of things. How has it all gone so wrong?!
When he no longer wants to be associated with the Geeks he once called friends, he starts to realise that maybe this isn't what he wants after all. After so long of trying to fit in and fly under the radar, it turns out that maybe doing what you love is enough to keep you truly happy.
Geekhood: Close Encounters of the Girl Kind is a hilarious book, following Archie's combat with problems that are well-known among us teens. I love the script of the interior monologue, and I think a lot of people can appreciate Archie's attempts to mask his true feelings and use of his interior monologue to express himself without others hearing. Definitely a good book, which I enjoyed far more than I expected! A strong 4 stars from me.
Geekhood: Close Encounters of the Girl Kind is a greatly humorous, relatable book about the struggles of a 14-year-old Geek.
Archie, a true Geek to his core, has a lot going on in his life. His parents are divorced, his step-dad is a Tosser, the only thing his friends are good at is the Game, and, to top it all off, he is struck by surprise by a Close Encounter with a Beautiful Goth.
After Sarah tries to help him battle his problems and insecurities, Archie replaces his snarky interior monologue with the voice of his psychic self, trudging alone along the path to psychic alignment. But things don't go quite as he hopes, and he soon makes a serious mess of things. How has it all gone so wrong?!
When he no longer wants to be associated with the Geeks he once called friends, he starts to realise that maybe this isn't what he wants after all. After so long of trying to fit in and fly under the radar, it turns out that maybe doing what you love is enough to keep you truly happy.
Geekhood: Close Encounters of the Girl Kind is a hilarious book, following Archie's combat with problems that are well-known among us teens. I love the script of the interior monologue, and I think a lot of people can appreciate Archie's attempts to mask his true feelings and use of his interior monologue to express himself without others hearing. Definitely a good book, which I enjoyed far more than I expected! A strong 4 stars from me.