Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Dracula by Bram Stoker is the ultimate horror classic of all times. This is where it all started. A tale about a creature that feeds on the blood to survive, but also a tale of friendship and love, described and presented in a way we rarely have a privilege to see these days.
If Vampire Diaries, Vampire Academy, Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse series pop to your mind when you first think of vampires, this book might feel extremely slow to your taste. However, if you want to experience the real horror and the building tension through many diary entries - you will enjoy this book completely.
I am a fan of both, and I had moments where I fell in love with the detailed explanations of weather and whereabouts. But the setting of writing many polite letters to people dear to the characters also made me cringe. I suppose a cringe can’t be all bad for a horror book though?
Through many diary entries of various characters, we follow their experience with the Count Dracula. Young Jonathan Harker is sent to go to Transylvania and arrange for the apartments the Count Dracula wants to buy in London. During his stay, he faces many unusual things. Meanwhile, his fiance Mina and her friend Lucy are in London, and Lucy is facing some unusual experiences herself, when Dr. Seward arrives to help better her condition.
“How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads; to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams.”
I knew what I was getting into, and I believe knowing this is a classic, and not a fast-paced romance with a paranormal twist put me in the right mood from the very beginning, so I was aware of what I was going into, and I really enjoyed it!
Dracula as a character is so mysterious, so powerful, very feared and secretly admired. I both loved and hated the fact that we don’t get to really see much of him, but we have to be satisfied with what the other characters are going through. And even though, he continues to be a shadow, a fear, a thought of everything they are doing. He is always there, even when he isn’t, and it requires great skills as a writer to create that presence for a character.
The characters of Lucy and Mina were very interesting - from a time perspective. How things have changed for women in all these years. What women were doing and thinking at that time, and how different it is now. I suppose I could make all the comparisons in the world - but one thing stays true will all classic books - they leave a mark of the time they were written, and this mark always gets better as time goes by.
“It is really wonderful how much resilience there is in human nature. Let any obstructing cause, no matter what, be removed in any way - even by death - and we fly back to first principles of hope and enjoyment."
I am glad I read Dracula, and I will try to read more classics in the new year. The writing style, the past of them, they remind you to take a big breath and acknowledge many things you take for granted in today’s world. In a world of page-turners, you sometimes need a slow book that makes you think deeply.
If Vampire Diaries, Vampire Academy, Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse series pop to your mind when you first think of vampires, this book might feel extremely slow to your taste. However, if you want to experience the real horror and the building tension through many diary entries - you will enjoy this book completely.
I am a fan of both, and I had moments where I fell in love with the detailed explanations of weather and whereabouts. But the setting of writing many polite letters to people dear to the characters also made me cringe. I suppose a cringe can’t be all bad for a horror book though?
Through many diary entries of various characters, we follow their experience with the Count Dracula. Young Jonathan Harker is sent to go to Transylvania and arrange for the apartments the Count Dracula wants to buy in London. During his stay, he faces many unusual things. Meanwhile, his fiance Mina and her friend Lucy are in London, and Lucy is facing some unusual experiences herself, when Dr. Seward arrives to help better her condition.
“How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads; to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams.”
I knew what I was getting into, and I believe knowing this is a classic, and not a fast-paced romance with a paranormal twist put me in the right mood from the very beginning, so I was aware of what I was going into, and I really enjoyed it!
Dracula as a character is so mysterious, so powerful, very feared and secretly admired. I both loved and hated the fact that we don’t get to really see much of him, but we have to be satisfied with what the other characters are going through. And even though, he continues to be a shadow, a fear, a thought of everything they are doing. He is always there, even when he isn’t, and it requires great skills as a writer to create that presence for a character.
The characters of Lucy and Mina were very interesting - from a time perspective. How things have changed for women in all these years. What women were doing and thinking at that time, and how different it is now. I suppose I could make all the comparisons in the world - but one thing stays true will all classic books - they leave a mark of the time they were written, and this mark always gets better as time goes by.
“It is really wonderful how much resilience there is in human nature. Let any obstructing cause, no matter what, be removed in any way - even by death - and we fly back to first principles of hope and enjoyment."
I am glad I read Dracula, and I will try to read more classics in the new year. The writing style, the past of them, they remind you to take a big breath and acknowledge many things you take for granted in today’s world. In a world of page-turners, you sometimes need a slow book that makes you think deeply.
World Cup Table Tennis™
Games and Sports
App
World Cup Table Tennis. #1 franchise in 94 countries. And of course, the #1 Table Tennis game on the...
Siren's Surrender (Dark Tides #2)
7.0
Rate It
Book
Never embracing her mermaid heritage, Gwen Lonike lives in the human world as the owner of a Maine...
Yarn Magazine
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
If you enjoy yarn, this is the magazine for you. Yarn features a mix of projects, articles,...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Steam Park: Play Dirty in Tabletop Games
Aug 20, 2021
In the expansion review series, we take a look at a game expansion to discuss whether it is a necessary purchase/addition to one’s collection.
This breakdown is for the action dice-rolling and them park-building game Steam Park’s modular expansion, Play Dirty (as in dirt, not as in adult themes). Play Dirty is a modular expansion, so some modules may be added or left out depending on comfort level and enjoyment of each module.
One major module added to this expansion is the addition of a fifth player to Steam Park. As if Steam Park wasn’t frantic enough with four, go ahead and throw in a fifth set of hands going crazy at the table! Also included are gray “Stingy Visitors,” which act as wild visitor types for color, but provide one less Danari (currency in Steam Park) but create NO DIRT. Excellent! Play Dirty also includes a new set of five stands for robots to do business: Fountain, Hall of Mirrors, Office, Shooting Gallery, and Incinerator. Along with these new stands are a set of stand reference tiles to remind players what each stand actually does in the game. Very handy.
The biggest difference-makers in the expansion box are the Ride Extensions, Park Directors, and Espionage Dice. Ride Extensions do just that – extend existing rides in one’s park, but the two different colored extensions (golden and rusty) have their own rules that are triggered depending on colors of robots upon them. The Park Directors module adds a new twist that changes the rules for an aspect of the base game for all players throughout the entire game. These are very powerful changes, and one Park Director is chosen to be used at the beginning of each game. Espionage Dice are very special in that one is added to each player’s white dice and rolled as normal throughout the game. However, the Espionage Dice cost 4 Danari to activate after the Roll Phase. The power here is that the player using the die pays one Danari less to use it when matching the face of white dice in their opponent’s pig sitting to their right. For example, to use a Build Stand face on Espionage Die will cost four Danari normally. However, should the opponent on the right have four Build Stand symbols showing on their white dice, the Espionage Die activates for free!
Must you own the Play Dirty expansion to truly enjoy your plays of Steam Park? Not at all. I do very much enjoy several of the modules in the box though. I really enjoy the powerful Park Directors because it freshens up a rule from the base game or modifies it in interesting ways. I like the new Stands that come in the box as well for additional options during play, but you MUST use the reference tiles, especially if combining all 10 Stands. The other modules are fine, but I would have been happy with just the ones I mentioned here.
Official recommendation: I remember my first play of Steam Park and falling in love with it right away. I have never felt stagnation in my future plays, but adding Play Dirty certainly is a game-changer in every sense of the term. I say definitely pick it up if you are feeling the base game no longer gives you the excitement and frenzy it once did.
This breakdown is for the action dice-rolling and them park-building game Steam Park’s modular expansion, Play Dirty (as in dirt, not as in adult themes). Play Dirty is a modular expansion, so some modules may be added or left out depending on comfort level and enjoyment of each module.
One major module added to this expansion is the addition of a fifth player to Steam Park. As if Steam Park wasn’t frantic enough with four, go ahead and throw in a fifth set of hands going crazy at the table! Also included are gray “Stingy Visitors,” which act as wild visitor types for color, but provide one less Danari (currency in Steam Park) but create NO DIRT. Excellent! Play Dirty also includes a new set of five stands for robots to do business: Fountain, Hall of Mirrors, Office, Shooting Gallery, and Incinerator. Along with these new stands are a set of stand reference tiles to remind players what each stand actually does in the game. Very handy.
The biggest difference-makers in the expansion box are the Ride Extensions, Park Directors, and Espionage Dice. Ride Extensions do just that – extend existing rides in one’s park, but the two different colored extensions (golden and rusty) have their own rules that are triggered depending on colors of robots upon them. The Park Directors module adds a new twist that changes the rules for an aspect of the base game for all players throughout the entire game. These are very powerful changes, and one Park Director is chosen to be used at the beginning of each game. Espionage Dice are very special in that one is added to each player’s white dice and rolled as normal throughout the game. However, the Espionage Dice cost 4 Danari to activate after the Roll Phase. The power here is that the player using the die pays one Danari less to use it when matching the face of white dice in their opponent’s pig sitting to their right. For example, to use a Build Stand face on Espionage Die will cost four Danari normally. However, should the opponent on the right have four Build Stand symbols showing on their white dice, the Espionage Die activates for free!
Must you own the Play Dirty expansion to truly enjoy your plays of Steam Park? Not at all. I do very much enjoy several of the modules in the box though. I really enjoy the powerful Park Directors because it freshens up a rule from the base game or modifies it in interesting ways. I like the new Stands that come in the box as well for additional options during play, but you MUST use the reference tiles, especially if combining all 10 Stands. The other modules are fine, but I would have been happy with just the ones I mentioned here.
Official recommendation: I remember my first play of Steam Park and falling in love with it right away. I have never felt stagnation in my future plays, but adding Play Dirty certainly is a game-changer in every sense of the term. I say definitely pick it up if you are feeling the base game no longer gives you the excitement and frenzy it once did.
Keep Her Safe
8.0
Rate It
Book
In the blink of an eye, she's gone. Maggie’s daughter Penny is her whole world… and she’d do...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
The much anticipated new release, I was amazed that I managed to avoid seeing the trailer or spoilers (I even only vaguely saw the poster), and after seeing the film... I'm not sure that was entirely sensible, I should probably have knocked down my anticipation a bit by looking at all of it.
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)