Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unfriended (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deeply Unnerving
When was the last time you watched a genuinely scary horror film? For me, Sinister, The Conjuring and You’re Next are three of the most terrifying movies to grace the silver screen in the last few years.
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
Awkward, failed attempt at satire?
After college, Elinor moves to New York with her journalism degree and dreams of writing pieces that mean something. She sees a future with her boyfriend, Mike, also a journalist. Instead, Elinor lives in a cramped apartment with no kitchen, sleeps on a foam pad, and nannies to two slightly whiny and obsessive children. She thinks her future is looking up when she's offered a position at Journalism.ly, a digital brand a la BuzzFeed. But soon Elinor learns that her sole function there is to produce pieces that go "viral" and then she and Mike break up, pushing her into a deeper depression. Is it even possible to have the creative and romantic life she dreamed of, Elinor wonders?
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hereditary (2018) in Movies
Jun 28, 2018
Laughable
For me, the hardest genre of film to get right is horror. In short order the filmmaker needs to set up the premise and "rules of engagement" of the world that is being presented and then execute incredulous situations and predicaments in such a way that are plausible and tense.
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Still Alice in Books
Sep 3, 2018
I just finished reading a novel called Still Alice by Lisa Genova about Alice, who is diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease in her early fifties. It's written from the point of view of the woman with the disease instead of the usual POV of a caretaker. With every page, as she fell deeper into the grips of the disease, I was convinced that I had early onset Alzheimer's. The phrases, it's a real page-turner or I couldn't put it down, are used so often that we forget that there are books that are actually like that. This one is. I had physical reaction to the book. I gasped in awe and terror. I laughed. I was fascinated by its beauty and terrified of the disease becoming a reality in my life someday. I cried. I got angry. I sighed with relief. I went through a whirlwind of emotion. It took my breath away. It should be required reading for everyone.
The novel is written so well that I become consumed by the author's thoughts and feelings and it really drew me in. After I finished the book, it took maybe a few days for me to realize it was just a book and not me losing my memory and my mind. I highly recommend the book, even if the subject matter may be scary to you, because you get a sense of how Alzheimer's robs a person of their thoughts and abilities and it will give you insight into how to treat loved one's and other victims of dementia and Alzheimer's. It was fascinating to learn how Alzheimer's ravages the different areas of the brain and what effect it has on the person. It explained what I always wondered, how can a person die from Alzheimer's. This IS NOT a spoiler. I am not saying that Alice dies in the book. Just that the mechanics of the disease is explain very well. It isn't just a novel for entertainment and enjoyment. It tells you about Alzheimer's inside out and as both Alice and her husband are scientists and Harvard professors, it doesn't dumb it down to the audience. It is not vague details but explicit facts that you will remember, that will change the way you think of Alzheimer's and aging and, dare I say, will change your life.
The character is a professor of psychology at Harvard (the author is also is a neuropsychologist or neuropsychiatrist. I forget which, oh, the irony! So she knows her stuff) and although at a few points, I thought it was far above my head, but when I really dug in and read the sentences a few times, it started to make sense and I think I learned something from it. I have fibromyalgia and arthritis so I have memory loss and cognitive thought issues and deal with so much pain in my life that it's difficult to understand new concepts, especially in the realm of academia. Other people may not have as much difficulty as I did getting through the scientific aspects of the disease and the vast influx of new information.
Sidenote: I was very happy to discover that the book has been made into a movie being released soon with Julianne Moore as the title character. That is one I will definitely see in the theater.
I'm so glad that the movie is made and will reach more people and expose them to early onset Alzheimer's.
Bravo to the author for taking us down the path, pain and beauty, yes, beauty of Alzheimer's.
The novel is written so well that I become consumed by the author's thoughts and feelings and it really drew me in. After I finished the book, it took maybe a few days for me to realize it was just a book and not me losing my memory and my mind. I highly recommend the book, even if the subject matter may be scary to you, because you get a sense of how Alzheimer's robs a person of their thoughts and abilities and it will give you insight into how to treat loved one's and other victims of dementia and Alzheimer's. It was fascinating to learn how Alzheimer's ravages the different areas of the brain and what effect it has on the person. It explained what I always wondered, how can a person die from Alzheimer's. This IS NOT a spoiler. I am not saying that Alice dies in the book. Just that the mechanics of the disease is explain very well. It isn't just a novel for entertainment and enjoyment. It tells you about Alzheimer's inside out and as both Alice and her husband are scientists and Harvard professors, it doesn't dumb it down to the audience. It is not vague details but explicit facts that you will remember, that will change the way you think of Alzheimer's and aging and, dare I say, will change your life.
The character is a professor of psychology at Harvard (the author is also is a neuropsychologist or neuropsychiatrist. I forget which, oh, the irony! So she knows her stuff) and although at a few points, I thought it was far above my head, but when I really dug in and read the sentences a few times, it started to make sense and I think I learned something from it. I have fibromyalgia and arthritis so I have memory loss and cognitive thought issues and deal with so much pain in my life that it's difficult to understand new concepts, especially in the realm of academia. Other people may not have as much difficulty as I did getting through the scientific aspects of the disease and the vast influx of new information.
Sidenote: I was very happy to discover that the book has been made into a movie being released soon with Julianne Moore as the title character. That is one I will definitely see in the theater.
I'm so glad that the movie is made and will reach more people and expose them to early onset Alzheimer's.
Bravo to the author for taking us down the path, pain and beauty, yes, beauty of Alzheimer's.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Chilbury Ladies' Choir in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
"Just because the men have gone to war, why do we have to close the choir? And precisely when we need it most!"
Set in the fictional village of Chilbury, Kent during the Second World War, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> explores the lives of the women left behind whilst the men go off to fight. The remaining villagers are disappointed at the closing of the church choir, which, according to the vicar, cannot go on without any men to sing the tenor and bass parts. However, the arrival of bold, forthright Primrose Trent brings the birth of a new choir, a choir for women only.
Although a war is going on, the ladies of Chilbury have so many other things on their minds. Told through a conflation letters and diary entries, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> reveals the everyday lives of a handful of characters. Mrs Tilling’s journal provides an overview of the general events, whilst 18-year-old Venetia’s letters divulge the wiles and charms she uses in the name of romance. Other characters, particularly the young teenager, Kitty, offer other insights to the goings on in the village.
From falling in love, to having babies, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is full of secrets, schemes and misunderstandings that almost let the villagers forget there is a war on. However, the effects of war do reach the little village, bringing with it terror and grief.
The individual stories that make up the book provide the reader with a number of scenarios that are full of emotion, but equally entertain. One moment the horror of war could leave readers in flood of tears, the next, Mrs B.’s pretentious personality and vaunting comments bring amusement and laughter.
All the while these events are playing out, the Chilbury Ladies’ Choir pulls the women together, providing them with a source of comfort to get them through the terrible times. No matter what disasters befall them, whether caused by war or their own actions, joining together in song gives them a purpose and opportunity to have a break from their fears and grief. War may destroy, but they will carry on singing.
Written in the manner of private letters and journals gives the novel a personal touch. The story is not merely narrated, it is expressed through the emotion and feelings of individual characters, making the scenarios seem more authentic. The downside to this method is the lack of distinction between each character’s voices. With no detectable dialect, the musings of a 13-year-old are composed in much the same manner as the much older Mrs Tilling.
<i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is an enjoyable piece of historical literature, which is bound to appeal to many people. Although set during World War II, its primary focus is on the people in the village, making it more attractive to readers who are fed up of reading about bombs and fighting. A mix of family issues, bribery and romance provide considerably more entertainment than a generic wartime novel. Being Jennifer Ryan’s debut novel, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is of a quality that suggests the author has so much more to deliver in the not-so-distant future.
"Just because the men have gone to war, why do we have to close the choir? And precisely when we need it most!"
Set in the fictional village of Chilbury, Kent during the Second World War, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> explores the lives of the women left behind whilst the men go off to fight. The remaining villagers are disappointed at the closing of the church choir, which, according to the vicar, cannot go on without any men to sing the tenor and bass parts. However, the arrival of bold, forthright Primrose Trent brings the birth of a new choir, a choir for women only.
Although a war is going on, the ladies of Chilbury have so many other things on their minds. Told through a conflation letters and diary entries, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> reveals the everyday lives of a handful of characters. Mrs Tilling’s journal provides an overview of the general events, whilst 18-year-old Venetia’s letters divulge the wiles and charms she uses in the name of romance. Other characters, particularly the young teenager, Kitty, offer other insights to the goings on in the village.
From falling in love, to having babies, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is full of secrets, schemes and misunderstandings that almost let the villagers forget there is a war on. However, the effects of war do reach the little village, bringing with it terror and grief.
The individual stories that make up the book provide the reader with a number of scenarios that are full of emotion, but equally entertain. One moment the horror of war could leave readers in flood of tears, the next, Mrs B.’s pretentious personality and vaunting comments bring amusement and laughter.
All the while these events are playing out, the Chilbury Ladies’ Choir pulls the women together, providing them with a source of comfort to get them through the terrible times. No matter what disasters befall them, whether caused by war or their own actions, joining together in song gives them a purpose and opportunity to have a break from their fears and grief. War may destroy, but they will carry on singing.
Written in the manner of private letters and journals gives the novel a personal touch. The story is not merely narrated, it is expressed through the emotion and feelings of individual characters, making the scenarios seem more authentic. The downside to this method is the lack of distinction between each character’s voices. With no detectable dialect, the musings of a 13-year-old are composed in much the same manner as the much older Mrs Tilling.
<i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is an enjoyable piece of historical literature, which is bound to appeal to many people. Although set during World War II, its primary focus is on the people in the village, making it more attractive to readers who are fed up of reading about bombs and fighting. A mix of family issues, bribery and romance provide considerably more entertainment than a generic wartime novel. Being Jennifer Ryan’s debut novel, <i>The Chilbury Ladies’ Choir</i> is of a quality that suggests the author has so much more to deliver in the not-so-distant future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Knowing (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) is a man who lives in a world of facts. As a professor at M.I.T. he is more concerned about things that can be proven through hard science than with things that cannot be proven. With the recent loss of his wife leaving him a single father, John is not willing to accept the notion of a grand plan or the notion of heaven easily.
John’s son Caleb (Chandler Cantebury), morns the loss of his mother and looks to pick up his life with his father unaware of the dramatic turn that fate has in store for them both in the new film “Knowing” by Director Alex Proyas.
When a 50 year old time capsule is unearthed at Caleb’s school he and his fellow classmates eagerly await the envelopes contained within as each student is eager to see what the students from the past have placed in the envelopes as their predictions of the future. Caleb’s envelope contains not a picture but a series of numbers which he quickly dismisses.
One evening at home, John accidently notices the series of numbers and notices the date of 9/11/01 is included followed by a number. Intrigued, John looks up the 9/11 terror attacks online and is surprised that the numbers on the paper that follow the date are the exact death count from the attack. An all night study of the paper indicates to John that the exact date and death count of tragedies from the last fifty years are contained on the paper with some other numbers John cannot account for. What John does know is that there are three dates left on the paper, all of which are in the near future.
Further complicating matters is that the paper contains the data for the accident the killed John’s wife which leads him to believe that he can alter the outcome of the tragedies that are yet to happen and that he has been chosen to save those destined for a tragic death.
When mysterious individuals start to appear near Caleb, John finds himself in a race against time to get to the bottom of the mystery. His efforts lead him to Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the girl who wrote the numbers on the sheet. While at first reluctant to become involved Diana and her daughter join John and Caleb in a frantic race against time with the very fate of the world hanging in the balance.
“Knowing” is a very compelling drama that mixes action and suspense with expert pacing to produce a first rate and entertaining thriller. Proyas keeps the film moving at a brisk pace but is not afraid to let the film slow down to allow the tension to build. The FX in the film are first rate and while spectacular are not the main attraction to this character driven drama. Though a bit monotone and restrained for my taste, Cage does solid work as the Skeptical John who realizes that there are forces in the universe that cannot be explained and who comes across as a likeable everyman in an extraordinary situation.
The strong script and direction is well balanced by the supporting cast. The ending of the film might be a bit to Hollywood for some, and for me, did detract slightly from the first ¾ of the film.
That being said, “Knowing” was a very enjoyable film and reminded me of the type of films that M. Night Shyamalan used to make, and probably wishes he had done.
John’s son Caleb (Chandler Cantebury), morns the loss of his mother and looks to pick up his life with his father unaware of the dramatic turn that fate has in store for them both in the new film “Knowing” by Director Alex Proyas.
When a 50 year old time capsule is unearthed at Caleb’s school he and his fellow classmates eagerly await the envelopes contained within as each student is eager to see what the students from the past have placed in the envelopes as their predictions of the future. Caleb’s envelope contains not a picture but a series of numbers which he quickly dismisses.
One evening at home, John accidently notices the series of numbers and notices the date of 9/11/01 is included followed by a number. Intrigued, John looks up the 9/11 terror attacks online and is surprised that the numbers on the paper that follow the date are the exact death count from the attack. An all night study of the paper indicates to John that the exact date and death count of tragedies from the last fifty years are contained on the paper with some other numbers John cannot account for. What John does know is that there are three dates left on the paper, all of which are in the near future.
Further complicating matters is that the paper contains the data for the accident the killed John’s wife which leads him to believe that he can alter the outcome of the tragedies that are yet to happen and that he has been chosen to save those destined for a tragic death.
When mysterious individuals start to appear near Caleb, John finds himself in a race against time to get to the bottom of the mystery. His efforts lead him to Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the girl who wrote the numbers on the sheet. While at first reluctant to become involved Diana and her daughter join John and Caleb in a frantic race against time with the very fate of the world hanging in the balance.
“Knowing” is a very compelling drama that mixes action and suspense with expert pacing to produce a first rate and entertaining thriller. Proyas keeps the film moving at a brisk pace but is not afraid to let the film slow down to allow the tension to build. The FX in the film are first rate and while spectacular are not the main attraction to this character driven drama. Though a bit monotone and restrained for my taste, Cage does solid work as the Skeptical John who realizes that there are forces in the universe that cannot be explained and who comes across as a likeable everyman in an extraordinary situation.
The strong script and direction is well balanced by the supporting cast. The ending of the film might be a bit to Hollywood for some, and for me, did detract slightly from the first ¾ of the film.
That being said, “Knowing” was a very enjoyable film and reminded me of the type of films that M. Night Shyamalan used to make, and probably wishes he had done.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1972, horror icon Wes Craven made a name for himself by writing and directing a film called “The Last House on the Left.” The film was very controversial and helped launch a new genre of terror and suspense films that pushed the limits of the times. The film was notorious for its content which included rape, torture, humiliation, and violence and contains to this day some of the most disturbing images ever captured on film. In this age of remakes, prequels, and sequels, Wes Craven has stepped aside to produce a new version of his classic and this remake is sure to be as controversial and disturbing as the original was.
The film centers around 17 year old Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton), who is taking time off from her competitive swimming and school to spend the summer with her parents Emma and John (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn), at their remote cabin in the woods. The family is coming to grips with the loss of their son, and Mari is anxious to spend some time with her friend Paige (Martha MacIssac), whom she has not seen in a while.
Despite concerns from her mother, Mari is given the keys to the car by her father and travels into town to see Paige. The two girls meet a boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), and proceed to go back to his room to party. The three of them are having a great time until Justin’s father Krug (Garrett Dillahunt), as well as his uncle and father’s girlfriend return unexpectedly. Krug and the group are wanted convicts after a bloody escape that has left two officers dead and Krug and his family the subject of an intense manhunt. The presence of Paige and Mari is an unwanted complication and the two girls are kidnapped and taken deep into the woods. After a failed escape attempt, the unstable group set upon the girls in a series of violent physical and psychological torture and acts before brutally finishing with them and leaving them for dead.
When an unexpected storm arrives, the fugitives take refuge at the only house in the area which happens to be Mari’s home. The Collingwood’s take the stranded group in and render medical assistance thanks to John’s background as a doctor. Unaware of the evil they have let into their home, the Collingwood’s life is turned upside down when their nearly dead daughter appears on their doorstep and forces the family to do whatever it takes to survive.
What follows is a dark, violent, and intense finale that goes to extreme measures to underscore the brutality and desperation the family has been driven to in order to survive. This may lead to some using the popular phrase “torture porn” to describe the film, but that would imply a film that existed in no other context but to titillate an audience with pain and suffering. The film is thin on plot and character development, making it simply a film about revenge and the depths people will go to in order to survive and protect their loved ones. The film is a bit slow at parts but few people will forget some of the more intense moments of the film include the finale. As with “The Hills Have Eyes”, Craven created settings where ideal families were driven to extreme measures when confronted with life outside of the safe suburbs in which they dwelled. The film will shock and dismay some, but few will forget the disturbing images anytime soon.
The film centers around 17 year old Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton), who is taking time off from her competitive swimming and school to spend the summer with her parents Emma and John (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn), at their remote cabin in the woods. The family is coming to grips with the loss of their son, and Mari is anxious to spend some time with her friend Paige (Martha MacIssac), whom she has not seen in a while.
Despite concerns from her mother, Mari is given the keys to the car by her father and travels into town to see Paige. The two girls meet a boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), and proceed to go back to his room to party. The three of them are having a great time until Justin’s father Krug (Garrett Dillahunt), as well as his uncle and father’s girlfriend return unexpectedly. Krug and the group are wanted convicts after a bloody escape that has left two officers dead and Krug and his family the subject of an intense manhunt. The presence of Paige and Mari is an unwanted complication and the two girls are kidnapped and taken deep into the woods. After a failed escape attempt, the unstable group set upon the girls in a series of violent physical and psychological torture and acts before brutally finishing with them and leaving them for dead.
When an unexpected storm arrives, the fugitives take refuge at the only house in the area which happens to be Mari’s home. The Collingwood’s take the stranded group in and render medical assistance thanks to John’s background as a doctor. Unaware of the evil they have let into their home, the Collingwood’s life is turned upside down when their nearly dead daughter appears on their doorstep and forces the family to do whatever it takes to survive.
What follows is a dark, violent, and intense finale that goes to extreme measures to underscore the brutality and desperation the family has been driven to in order to survive. This may lead to some using the popular phrase “torture porn” to describe the film, but that would imply a film that existed in no other context but to titillate an audience with pain and suffering. The film is thin on plot and character development, making it simply a film about revenge and the depths people will go to in order to survive and protect their loved ones. The film is a bit slow at parts but few people will forget some of the more intense moments of the film include the finale. As with “The Hills Have Eyes”, Craven created settings where ideal families were driven to extreme measures when confronted with life outside of the safe suburbs in which they dwelled. The film will shock and dismay some, but few will forget the disturbing images anytime soon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ringu 2 (Ring 2) (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When the American version of the classic Japanese horror film “Ringu” became a smash hit at the box office it did not take a rocket scientist to realize that “The Ring” would soon generate a sequel.
The film had all of the elements for success, a creepy supernatural tale, a twisting and complex storyline that kept viewers guessing, and plenty of frights that made even the most jaded horror viewers squirm.
Sadly, the newest film in the series The Ring Two plays as an uninspired effort that seems to exist simply to cash in on the first film with little to no effort to add to the series.
The film opens with Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), having left Seattle with her son Aidan (David Dorfman), in an effort to put the horrors of their experiences in the first film behind them. Settling into a bland but comfortable existence in a coastal town named Astoria.
Rachel spends her days working for the tiny local paper though it is obvious that she is struggling to cope with the step down from working for a major metropolitan paper. When an unexplained homicide occurs, the local media crew is excited as for once, they will have a real story to cover. That is all of the staff aside t for Rachel who finds details of the murder disturbingly familiar to what she has witnessed in the past.
A study of the crime scene discovers a copy of the tape from the first film, that when viewed causes the viewer to die in seven days. Rachel is convinced that destroying the tape will end the terror once and for all, but despite her best efforts bizarre events continue.
The fact that her son has become ill and is acting odd, (even for him), is cause for Rachel to try to determine what is causing the changes. What is missing though is the energy and eeriness that drove the first film. Instead the audience gets paper thin characters, a very slow and plodding story, and very few frights.
The film has a couple of good scares but they are very few and far apart. The film also has gigantic lapses in logic as characters act as if their brains are in a deep freeze. During one moment, Rachel is told by her son to drive, instead she decides to stop and chat. Something goes awry, and Rachel is again told to drive, yet again she decides to stop and chat oblivious to what has happened.
All of this could be forgiven but not the very tired fallbacks that the film uses instead of offering anything fresh. What made the first film so good was the way it kept surprising the audience by coming up with new twists and turns as well as clever misdirection that kept viewers on edge and guessing what was to come next.
This time out, the cleverness and originality of the first film seems to have been sucked out of the film in favor of a few gimmick effects and a paper thin plot that seems to have been culled from other films. Add this all up, and sadly The Ring franchise has become an imitator rather than an innovator and this effort will leave fans in the cold.
The film had all of the elements for success, a creepy supernatural tale, a twisting and complex storyline that kept viewers guessing, and plenty of frights that made even the most jaded horror viewers squirm.
Sadly, the newest film in the series The Ring Two plays as an uninspired effort that seems to exist simply to cash in on the first film with little to no effort to add to the series.
The film opens with Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), having left Seattle with her son Aidan (David Dorfman), in an effort to put the horrors of their experiences in the first film behind them. Settling into a bland but comfortable existence in a coastal town named Astoria.
Rachel spends her days working for the tiny local paper though it is obvious that she is struggling to cope with the step down from working for a major metropolitan paper. When an unexplained homicide occurs, the local media crew is excited as for once, they will have a real story to cover. That is all of the staff aside t for Rachel who finds details of the murder disturbingly familiar to what she has witnessed in the past.
A study of the crime scene discovers a copy of the tape from the first film, that when viewed causes the viewer to die in seven days. Rachel is convinced that destroying the tape will end the terror once and for all, but despite her best efforts bizarre events continue.
The fact that her son has become ill and is acting odd, (even for him), is cause for Rachel to try to determine what is causing the changes. What is missing though is the energy and eeriness that drove the first film. Instead the audience gets paper thin characters, a very slow and plodding story, and very few frights.
The film has a couple of good scares but they are very few and far apart. The film also has gigantic lapses in logic as characters act as if their brains are in a deep freeze. During one moment, Rachel is told by her son to drive, instead she decides to stop and chat. Something goes awry, and Rachel is again told to drive, yet again she decides to stop and chat oblivious to what has happened.
All of this could be forgiven but not the very tired fallbacks that the film uses instead of offering anything fresh. What made the first film so good was the way it kept surprising the audience by coming up with new twists and turns as well as clever misdirection that kept viewers on edge and guessing what was to come next.
This time out, the cleverness and originality of the first film seems to have been sucked out of the film in favor of a few gimmick effects and a paper thin plot that seems to have been culled from other films. Add this all up, and sadly The Ring franchise has become an imitator rather than an innovator and this effort will leave fans in the cold.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Superheroes and villains are a subject close to my heart, I enjoy speculating on the good and bad potential of superpowers, so to have the bad Superman story laid out like this is very interesting to experience.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Darren (1599 KP) rated We Still Kill The Old Way (2014) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: We Still Kill the Old Way starts as we see a new hooligan gang led by Aaron (Hatchered) causing havoc in the streets of London, they use their numbers to beat, harass or threaten their victims, which sees them clash with legendary Charlie Archer (Berkoff), killing him. Charlie’s brother Ritchie (Ogilvy) has been living away in Spain, with Susan Taylor (Doody) leading the investigation.
When Ritchie gets the news, he heads back to London in search for answers, which sees him bring back the old gang Roy (Ellison), Arthur (Cosmo) and Butch (Denham) to hunt down Aaron and his gang.
Thoughts on We Still Kill the Old Way
Characters – Ritchie is the respected former gangster of the streets of London, retired now, living in Spain, he returns after the murder of his brother, bring his old gang together to take on the younger gang that is running terror in the old neighbourhood. He remains in control of each situation knowing how to play each and everyone of the gang, police and neighbourhood to remain under the radar. Susan is the lead detective investigating the case, she wants a clean answer, though she does know what Ritchie is capable off. Roy is one of the gang, he enjoys helping Ritchie, missing the old ways the gang once had. Aaron is the leader of the gang of hooligans running chaos around London, his behaviour is complete disgrace, you will hate him from the opening scene, from the way he treats his girlfriend to the way he treats the elders.
Performances – Ian Ogilvy in the leading role gives us a proper cockney gangster figure we can believe in. Alison Doody makes for a solid local cop. Christopher Ellison will strike fear in anybody that crosses him, while Danny-Boy Hatchard makes his character truly disposable.
Story – The story follows a retired gangster that returns to his old stamping ground after his brother is murdered by a young gang causing problems in his old neighbourhood. This is the basic revenge film in the way Ritchie conducts his business, while mixing the idea that the new generation isn’t respecting the old style of the people who ran the area before them, they have no rules or manners. It is good to see the whole gang being truly hated and how respected the old generation is around the area. There are certain side stories that are overly tagged in and with Lauren is one of the worst characters in the history of film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is plenty of side ways pointed guns trying to be threatening, while having close up brutal punches being delivered. The crime side of the film uses the ideas of the two different generations of gangs in the underworld, this does give an element of comedy to how the older gang acts the town.
Settings – The film is set in London’s east end which shows us how the gangs operate around the neighbourhood.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital shoot out.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lauren’s decision-making.
Final Thoughts – This is a proper gangster film set in London which does work well with everything it is trying to do with the clash of gangs in London.
Overall: Fun gangster film.
When Ritchie gets the news, he heads back to London in search for answers, which sees him bring back the old gang Roy (Ellison), Arthur (Cosmo) and Butch (Denham) to hunt down Aaron and his gang.
Thoughts on We Still Kill the Old Way
Characters – Ritchie is the respected former gangster of the streets of London, retired now, living in Spain, he returns after the murder of his brother, bring his old gang together to take on the younger gang that is running terror in the old neighbourhood. He remains in control of each situation knowing how to play each and everyone of the gang, police and neighbourhood to remain under the radar. Susan is the lead detective investigating the case, she wants a clean answer, though she does know what Ritchie is capable off. Roy is one of the gang, he enjoys helping Ritchie, missing the old ways the gang once had. Aaron is the leader of the gang of hooligans running chaos around London, his behaviour is complete disgrace, you will hate him from the opening scene, from the way he treats his girlfriend to the way he treats the elders.
Performances – Ian Ogilvy in the leading role gives us a proper cockney gangster figure we can believe in. Alison Doody makes for a solid local cop. Christopher Ellison will strike fear in anybody that crosses him, while Danny-Boy Hatchard makes his character truly disposable.
Story – The story follows a retired gangster that returns to his old stamping ground after his brother is murdered by a young gang causing problems in his old neighbourhood. This is the basic revenge film in the way Ritchie conducts his business, while mixing the idea that the new generation isn’t respecting the old style of the people who ran the area before them, they have no rules or manners. It is good to see the whole gang being truly hated and how respected the old generation is around the area. There are certain side stories that are overly tagged in and with Lauren is one of the worst characters in the history of film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is plenty of side ways pointed guns trying to be threatening, while having close up brutal punches being delivered. The crime side of the film uses the ideas of the two different generations of gangs in the underworld, this does give an element of comedy to how the older gang acts the town.
Settings – The film is set in London’s east end which shows us how the gangs operate around the neighbourhood.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital shoot out.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lauren’s decision-making.
Final Thoughts – This is a proper gangster film set in London which does work well with everything it is trying to do with the clash of gangs in London.
Overall: Fun gangster film.