Search
Search results
KidloLand: Kids Nursery Rhymes
Education and Games
App
KidloLand is an award-winning app for kids (1-5 yrs) with 1000+ nursery rhymes, songs, games and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated ICECOOL in Tabletop Games
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 13, 2020)
Moving components around the board/play area is a staple of most board games. As board games have evolved, that mechanic has maintained an integral role in many games. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Well just because it’s not broken, doesn’t mean it can’t use a little innovation….and that’s where ICECOOL comes into play.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Apr 20, 2019
CGI is amazing (1 more)
The Perfect Mix of Morbid Humour and Gore
A Masterpiece of the Weird and Fantastical
This is going to be a long one, I'm going to review each episode as they aren't linked or related in any way, but just know, they are all gorgeous works of art and you should totally go watch the whole thing ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Climax (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
If you’re going to see this film, it likely won’t be a huge surprise to you. Those that will buy a ticket already know who Gaspar Noé is and what he’s all about. Films like Irreversible and Enter the Void have defined him as an artist of scandal, evil and the extreme. Climax follows directly in the footsteps of those films, but at this point it does leave us wondering if there’s any room for growth in this writer/director or if we’ll just continue to get more of the same until we’re sufficiently numb to his offerings.
The setting for Noé’s latest tour of human horrors is the final rehearsal of a French dance troupe set to tour internationally. The film begins with the final scene of the movie and the ending credits. Then, just as your confusion has built to appropriate levels, things actually begin with videotaped interviews of all 22 members in an attempt to give you some semblance of character introduction. Shown on an older TV, the screen is surrounded by books and plays focused on ultra-negative philosophical views and subjects such as schizophrenia and suicide. So, despite the rather upbeat and optimistic responses of the prospective dancers, the tone is already being set for the madness that is about to commence.
From there we are taken to the big dance number. A ten-minute single shot involving the entire cast choreographed to 90’s EDM music. While this scene felt a little bit long, it did nearly as much to introduce the characters as the audition tapes shown earlier. Each dancer has a unique style and flair that executes a certain character development. Once the dance is complete it feels like the movie finally begins and the cast starts their post-rehearsal party. The soiree involves dancing (of course), drinking (homemade sangria) and some minor cocaine use. But it mostly consists of quick shots between different cast members taking part in some intergroup gossip. We are treated to one more (non-choreographed) dance scene with each individual showing their talents in a circle of their comrades, then we break again for more conversation. As the party continues on everyone starts to feel a little bit funny. They quickly deduce that the sangria has been spiked with LSD, but cannot determine who drugged them.
And this is where the hour-long journey into hell embarks from. The realization that they have been drugged seems to worry them very little, but does instantly turn them all against each other. The effects of the LSD ramp up rather quickly and as the cast members descend into madness the audience is treated to a myriad of trauma and depravity including: rape, incest, self-mutilation, child electrocution and an attempted abortion via a swift kick to the stomach. None of this should be any surprise to someone familiar with Noé’s work. But if this is your first experience with his particular brand of filmmaking, then be prepared to leave no perverted stone unturned.
One of the most impressive things about this film is how little preparation actually went into it. The entire film was shot in 15 days and edited to completion in only 3 months after that in order to meet the Cannes festival deadline. In addition, it was shot with a mere 5 pages of script. The majority of the film consists of both dancing and psychotic undulations inspired by web videos of people high on crack, ecstasy and acid which were hand-selected by Noé. So, despite the assumed need for structure that comes with extended tracking shots such as these, the whole movie is (surprisingly) mostly ad-libbed. Only the opening dance scene is choreographed with all of the remaining ones being the result of the how the dancers chose to express themselves through dance.
In the end you’ll be left wondering if all of the shock and awe that’s been served to you actually meant something, or if it was simply sensory overload for the sake of itself. And that’s where the movie really falls short. If Noé had meant for any sort of deeper meaning in this film, it was ultimately lost to extreme subtlety. I did my best to find the clever allegory here (French history and culture, biblical stories, etc.) and I admittedly fell short. “Birth is a unique opportunity. Life is an impossible collective. Death is an extraordinary experience,” read three title cards which flash throughout the journey of Climax. Although these sayings are poetic and beautiful, they seem to have little or loose application to the actual storyline.
The strongest feelings in this film are not evoked from any sort of meaning or fable-style lesson. They come from the distress and disgust brought about by the actions of the characters and, more so, the beautifully executed cinematography. Every filming technique meant to cause discomfort is present here including: long tracking shots, inverted imagery, black screen with nonlinear sounds and subliminal images. The application and combination of all of these effects means that much credit for this film should most likely go to Noé’s DP, Benoit Debie.
Fundamentally, the judgement for a Gaspar Noé film exists on a different scale than any other film. And while that concept can be new and exciting when the first shocking film debuts, you quickly realize that subsequent ones have to continue to push the boundaries that were originally broken. Otherwise you run the risk of becoming stale. We may have gotten to that point now with Noé. Climax brings very little new shock to the table for a director who has developed his reputation as a purveyor of wickedness. Those who attend this movie will be looking for him to push their horror to new levels, but will likely end up unfulfilled. Although the lack of a new frontier doesn’t remove all of the value for the film, Noé has made implicit promises through his other work which he has failed to deliver upon with Climax.
The setting for Noé’s latest tour of human horrors is the final rehearsal of a French dance troupe set to tour internationally. The film begins with the final scene of the movie and the ending credits. Then, just as your confusion has built to appropriate levels, things actually begin with videotaped interviews of all 22 members in an attempt to give you some semblance of character introduction. Shown on an older TV, the screen is surrounded by books and plays focused on ultra-negative philosophical views and subjects such as schizophrenia and suicide. So, despite the rather upbeat and optimistic responses of the prospective dancers, the tone is already being set for the madness that is about to commence.
From there we are taken to the big dance number. A ten-minute single shot involving the entire cast choreographed to 90’s EDM music. While this scene felt a little bit long, it did nearly as much to introduce the characters as the audition tapes shown earlier. Each dancer has a unique style and flair that executes a certain character development. Once the dance is complete it feels like the movie finally begins and the cast starts their post-rehearsal party. The soiree involves dancing (of course), drinking (homemade sangria) and some minor cocaine use. But it mostly consists of quick shots between different cast members taking part in some intergroup gossip. We are treated to one more (non-choreographed) dance scene with each individual showing their talents in a circle of their comrades, then we break again for more conversation. As the party continues on everyone starts to feel a little bit funny. They quickly deduce that the sangria has been spiked with LSD, but cannot determine who drugged them.
And this is where the hour-long journey into hell embarks from. The realization that they have been drugged seems to worry them very little, but does instantly turn them all against each other. The effects of the LSD ramp up rather quickly and as the cast members descend into madness the audience is treated to a myriad of trauma and depravity including: rape, incest, self-mutilation, child electrocution and an attempted abortion via a swift kick to the stomach. None of this should be any surprise to someone familiar with Noé’s work. But if this is your first experience with his particular brand of filmmaking, then be prepared to leave no perverted stone unturned.
One of the most impressive things about this film is how little preparation actually went into it. The entire film was shot in 15 days and edited to completion in only 3 months after that in order to meet the Cannes festival deadline. In addition, it was shot with a mere 5 pages of script. The majority of the film consists of both dancing and psychotic undulations inspired by web videos of people high on crack, ecstasy and acid which were hand-selected by Noé. So, despite the assumed need for structure that comes with extended tracking shots such as these, the whole movie is (surprisingly) mostly ad-libbed. Only the opening dance scene is choreographed with all of the remaining ones being the result of the how the dancers chose to express themselves through dance.
In the end you’ll be left wondering if all of the shock and awe that’s been served to you actually meant something, or if it was simply sensory overload for the sake of itself. And that’s where the movie really falls short. If Noé had meant for any sort of deeper meaning in this film, it was ultimately lost to extreme subtlety. I did my best to find the clever allegory here (French history and culture, biblical stories, etc.) and I admittedly fell short. “Birth is a unique opportunity. Life is an impossible collective. Death is an extraordinary experience,” read three title cards which flash throughout the journey of Climax. Although these sayings are poetic and beautiful, they seem to have little or loose application to the actual storyline.
The strongest feelings in this film are not evoked from any sort of meaning or fable-style lesson. They come from the distress and disgust brought about by the actions of the characters and, more so, the beautifully executed cinematography. Every filming technique meant to cause discomfort is present here including: long tracking shots, inverted imagery, black screen with nonlinear sounds and subliminal images. The application and combination of all of these effects means that much credit for this film should most likely go to Noé’s DP, Benoit Debie.
Fundamentally, the judgement for a Gaspar Noé film exists on a different scale than any other film. And while that concept can be new and exciting when the first shocking film debuts, you quickly realize that subsequent ones have to continue to push the boundaries that were originally broken. Otherwise you run the risk of becoming stale. We may have gotten to that point now with Noé. Climax brings very little new shock to the table for a director who has developed his reputation as a purveyor of wickedness. Those who attend this movie will be looking for him to push their horror to new levels, but will likely end up unfulfilled. Although the lack of a new frontier doesn’t remove all of the value for the film, Noé has made implicit promises through his other work which he has failed to deliver upon with Climax.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
I am most familiar with the tale of the Phantom of the Opera from the musical of that name. It is likely different from the book by Gaston Leroux. I havent read the original novel that inspired the opera and RoseBlood itself in years. As a result, I am sure that I miss some nods to the original or nuances that people more familiar with the story will understand.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is Thorns guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
Runes first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change it was interesting but as I was reading I didnt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is Thorns guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
Runes first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change it was interesting but as I was reading I didnt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)