Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Silver Eyes (Five Nights at Freddy's, #1) in Books
Jul 5, 2019
It was in 2014 when the video game Five Nights at Freddy's debuted, and now it's one of the most well known horror games in the world. Homicidal animatronics, a nighttime security guard, and a children's pizza restaurant make up Scott Cawthon's world in FNAF. Fast forward to 2016: Cawthon makes the game's story into a book series. The lore surrounding the video game franchise seems to be more sought after than the game play itself. ' The Silver Eyes' is the first of three books telling the dark story from Cawthon, but from the eyes of the animatronics creator's daughter, Charlie, instead of the night guard at Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria.
We start with seventeen-year-old Charlie, who is returning to her hometown of Hurricane, Utah for a scholarship/memorial ceremony dedicated to her deceased childhood friend, Michael. She has a reunion with other childhood friends: Carlton, Jessica, John, Lamar and Marla; all of who share the same tragedy of Michael's disappearance from when they were children at Freddy Fazbear's. This disappearance seems to be the only thing the group can discuss, but more so from Charlie because her father was blamed for Michael's disappearance. This, the shared experience of being present at the time of Michael's kidnapping, and having been part of the same circle of friends, dominates this story. Charlie is our main point of view, but we are given a few glimpses from other characters which end up irrelevant.
Charlie's father, years before, had the pizzeria Freddy Fazbear's built in Hurricane, but after Michael was kidnapped while being there, it was shut down and, now, a mall is being built around it. But, with the stigma coming from Fazbear's kidnapping, no businesses will agree to have their store put inside the new building, leaving it abandoned. Right away, the reader is taken with the group of friends on a trip to the building, where they break into Fazbear's with only a lone guard on duty, but with the amount of noise the group makes and even, somehow, turning the electricity back on, it's unreasonable to the reader that the guard isn't aware of their presence. (Even the characters don't seem worried about the guard coming in and kicking them out).
Without trying to give any spoilers away to those who may not know the story- the night guard finally shows up later on in the book, but only to join the group on their third adventure through the abandoned Fazbear's. And it is as this point, the book is at it's best. Even the writing seems to change - - - as if a different person took over for the second part of the book (which is a good thing).
Cawthon and Breed-Wrisley tried their best to convey the story of Five Nights at Freddy's, but although the story is a good one, the writing is lacking in many aspects. There's not just a few inconsistencies that I found, but rather a lot, and one of these is an important one: Charlie,earlier on in the story, tells us about her twin brother, Sammy, being kidnapped from the first Pizzeria her father had built, but later on, she states that Sammy was present at the newer Fazbear's when clearly he had been kidnapped before the newer restaurant was even built.
This story isn't so much about animatronics and a child murderer, but rather a group of children that shared a trauma that permeates into their adulthood. Sadly, the symptoms of this trauma aren't clearly stated from a reality stand point, but the teen drama is held in-check, making it a much more pleasant read than most young adult books. Character development is also lacking enough that--- even the main character--- seems like a stranger to the reader, where interactions between most of the group seems forced and unreasonable.
I can only recommend this book to fans of Five Nights at Freddy's, but as just a casual reader of the horror genre, the writing is a huge disappointment. I can't and won't read this again.
We start with seventeen-year-old Charlie, who is returning to her hometown of Hurricane, Utah for a scholarship/memorial ceremony dedicated to her deceased childhood friend, Michael. She has a reunion with other childhood friends: Carlton, Jessica, John, Lamar and Marla; all of who share the same tragedy of Michael's disappearance from when they were children at Freddy Fazbear's. This disappearance seems to be the only thing the group can discuss, but more so from Charlie because her father was blamed for Michael's disappearance. This, the shared experience of being present at the time of Michael's kidnapping, and having been part of the same circle of friends, dominates this story. Charlie is our main point of view, but we are given a few glimpses from other characters which end up irrelevant.
Charlie's father, years before, had the pizzeria Freddy Fazbear's built in Hurricane, but after Michael was kidnapped while being there, it was shut down and, now, a mall is being built around it. But, with the stigma coming from Fazbear's kidnapping, no businesses will agree to have their store put inside the new building, leaving it abandoned. Right away, the reader is taken with the group of friends on a trip to the building, where they break into Fazbear's with only a lone guard on duty, but with the amount of noise the group makes and even, somehow, turning the electricity back on, it's unreasonable to the reader that the guard isn't aware of their presence. (Even the characters don't seem worried about the guard coming in and kicking them out).
Without trying to give any spoilers away to those who may not know the story- the night guard finally shows up later on in the book, but only to join the group on their third adventure through the abandoned Fazbear's. And it is as this point, the book is at it's best. Even the writing seems to change - - - as if a different person took over for the second part of the book (which is a good thing).
Cawthon and Breed-Wrisley tried their best to convey the story of Five Nights at Freddy's, but although the story is a good one, the writing is lacking in many aspects. There's not just a few inconsistencies that I found, but rather a lot, and one of these is an important one: Charlie,earlier on in the story, tells us about her twin brother, Sammy, being kidnapped from the first Pizzeria her father had built, but later on, she states that Sammy was present at the newer Fazbear's when clearly he had been kidnapped before the newer restaurant was even built.
This story isn't so much about animatronics and a child murderer, but rather a group of children that shared a trauma that permeates into their adulthood. Sadly, the symptoms of this trauma aren't clearly stated from a reality stand point, but the teen drama is held in-check, making it a much more pleasant read than most young adult books. Character development is also lacking enough that--- even the main character--- seems like a stranger to the reader, where interactions between most of the group seems forced and unreasonable.
I can only recommend this book to fans of Five Nights at Freddy's, but as just a casual reader of the horror genre, the writing is a huge disappointment. I can't and won't read this again.
The Secret Diary of Hendrik Groen, 83 Years Old
Hendrik Groen and Hester Velmans
8.7
Rate It
Book
** THE INTERNATIONAL PHENOMENON ** 'There are many laughs in this book but it's so much more than...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Enter the Void (Soudain le vide) (2010) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
WOW!
Not many modern filmmakers garner such a reputation for being controversial and are well deserved. Lars von Trier and Ari Aster come to mind, but I am sure there are others. They pull no punches with their work, so most provoke extreme reactions either love or hate. Maybe also appreciate the art form or what they are trying to say, but do not enjoy the extreme sex or violence or shock value from many of their scenes.
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
Effective scares (1 more)
The young stars are brilliant
Surprising decent entry in The Conjuring universe
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring. It's easily one of my favourite scary movies in recent years, successfully hitting the right notes for me when it comes to big scares. I wasn't such a fan of the opening scenes featuring Annabelle though, and The Conjuring 2 didn't quite do it for me either, so when the spin off Annabelle movie came out in 2014, I gave it a miss. Even more so when it received some pretty average reviews. It's been on my Netflix watch-list for sometime now, and I'm sure I will watch it out of curiosity at some point, but for now I can take it or leave it. When I saw the trailer for Annabelle: Creation though, it definitely grabbed my interest. More so than the previous movie. The fact that it was set before the last one and could be watched without needing to have seen it either was also a big plus point as far as I was concerned.
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated That Night in Books
Apr 8, 2019
I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike
It's been a year since the shooting in their town changed everything, and Jessica Nolan and Lucas Rossi are each trying to manage in their own way. Jess is trying to care for her severely depressed mom, who can barely get out of bed. That means helping pay the bills, cook the meals, and generally take care of everything. She misses her best friend desperately, but Marissa is across the country at a school for those suffering post traumatic stress. Meanwhile, Lucas is coping by taking up boxing. It helps relieve some of his stress and anxiety--and get him away from the watchful eye of his newly overprotective mom. When Jess and Lucas meet at their after-school job, they realize they have one big thing in common: their shared tragedy. It's not exactly something they want to share. But slowly the two become friends. Can they help each other move forward from some of the horrors they've been through?
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/