This is an excellent adaptation of a pretty mediocre book, made by a true fan of horror. Flanigan is one of the best in the field right now. This film feels like a sequel to Kubrick's "The Shining" and yet also feels like it's own thing. Ewan McGregor's Danny is fantastic, so much better than the trashy mess in King's novel. And Rebecca Ferguson turns Rose the Hat into a compelling character instead of the hot mess in the book. Zahn McClarnon turns Crow Daddy into a character that has real screen weight. The effects are minimal and used only when necessary. In fact, the whole film shows am admirable restraint that benefits the material and the mood. And yes, it's long, but just long enough. Just an excellent film.
Reviews
15 Reviews
Passenger
(2024– )
Excellent Dialogue and Acting
24 March 2024
A compelling and pretty original show that's kind of a Happy Valley with a weirdness angle. The dialogue is great, the pacing moves things well, nothing is spoon fed to the audience and the performances are all first rate. Every episode is tantalizing and interesting. The ending leaves things rather open, with several unanswered questions hanging about, suggesting a possible follow up, though I think it works just fine as is. A very pleasant surprise. Having said that, some folks won't like it - people who need to have everything wrapped up and explained, or who use TV shows as second screen content while they browse on their phones. This requires attention and, not patience exactly, but a willingness to let go and let the story take you where it takes you.
The Devil's Hour
(2022– )
Great until the finale
1 November 2022
An truly excellent series, and with an exceptional performance by Jessica Raine, who manages to breathe life into otherwise hackneyed tropes (and also Alex Ferns). Having said that, it all falls part with the final episode, where we realize that many of the details that were tantalizing are simply that - distractions and red herrings to keep us engaged. A story doesn't necessarily have to conform to our world's logic, but it does need to fit into its own internal logic. And this one does not. Gaping holes, and frankly a lazy ending. It makes you wonder if there was supposed to be more but somehow budgeting constraints forced the series to be truncated. So, yeah - a bummer, in the final analysis.
The Way Down
(2021–2022)
Okay, but did it really need to be this long?
24 July 2022
This should have been a single documentary film, not an almost 5-hour docuseries. The first two episodes are mainly people being angry that they fell for an Evangelical who turned out to be mainly about the money. Wow, who would ever have thought such a thing could happen? Episode 3, we finally see more or the consequences of a Christian cult in the making.
Moonhaven
(2022)
Not worthy in 2022
8 July 2022
I disagree with all the freakout negative reviews who think SF is supposed to be only action. But this is still a mediocre show - bad pacing, meh acting, run of the dialogue, bit a promising idea. I see why it got greenlit, but the final result is just not very good.
Shadow and Bone
(2021–2023)
How about a little humour and depth?
27 April 2021
It's fine. Serviceable. But yet another show with no humour. Nearly every person throughout history has had some kind of a sense of humour. But S&B just skips that altogether. With no humour, we can only watch characters, not people. Plus, this is clearly aimed at teens and I am not a teen nor do I have their priorities. So, yeah, it's fine. But could have and should have been more interesting.
Lovecraft Country
(2020)
A New Type of Show for Our Times
31 August 2020
To those who complain this isn't Lovecraft, not Cthulhu - take it up with the novelist the show is based on.
To those who think the show is "too black" - well, it's about time and you can take a long walk off a short pier.
To those who like innovative long-form entertainment - definitely give this a try. It's unusual, it's new and that means it's fresh. Looks great, plays with tropes and forms, has great performances and dialogue and manages to balance social awareness with a pulp horror for modern sensibilities. One of the most original things on at the moment.
To those who think the show is "too black" - well, it's about time and you can take a long walk off a short pier.
To those who like innovative long-form entertainment - definitely give this a try. It's unusual, it's new and that means it's fresh. Looks great, plays with tropes and forms, has great performances and dialogue and manages to balance social awareness with a pulp horror for modern sensibilities. One of the most original things on at the moment.
Defending Jacob
(2020)
Surprisingly Good...Until the Very End
29 May 2020
Great acting, pretty complex characters, a bit more than a bit above average storyline. But then that song at the end just screws an already problematic ending. Just destroyed the mood, and thus the point of the whole thing. Smells of the studio or channel sticking their noses in.
Avenue 5
(2020–2022)
Wow. Just wow.
20 January 2020
What the heck happened? This is like watching a fourth rate improv company. The timing is WAY off, and the jokes aren't funny anyway. Really just nothing going for it at all. Three stars because the sets look nice.
Watchmen
(2019)
Forget Your Preconceptions
11 November 2019
Once again, Lindenhoff helms one of the most original things currently in filmed entertainment. It is not Watchmen the comics, except it is. It is not a superherytale, except it is. It's about the present. It's about the future. It's about the past. It's about what is and what could be. The dialogue is fantastic, the design and details are incredible, the acting is top rate. It is unlike anything else currently on TV.
Jupiter Ascending
(2015)
A total waste of time and money
15 March 2015
Easily one of the worst films I have ever suffered through. The dialogue is farcically generic/cliché, the story is preposterous, the acting is...fine, for what they were given (everyone does their job) and the effects are...totally inconsequential. Many years ago, I gave "Avatar" two stars, but one of them was for the effects. But SFX are there now - we have the ability to make pretty much anything we can imagine come to life on the big screen. So - no more extra points for SFX. Compare a bloated toad like this film to a low budget gem like "Moon" - it's story and character that matter. Now granted, I am not a 13-year-old suburban girl, so maybe I am not the intended audience for this screenplay, and so missed something. But when a film full of action sequences (which are actually boring, if you can imagine it), makes me wish I was watching one of the Twilight films instead, you something has gone terribly wrong. I am considering invoicing the Wachowskis for the time I wasted watching this drivel.
On the plus side, the state of the art for SFX means that all sorts of good stories might finally make it to the big screen, things that were thought to be unfilmable before. So, I look forward to them.
But do NOT go see this movie. Do anything - even go to the dentist - rather than sit through this.
On the plus side, the state of the art for SFX means that all sorts of good stories might finally make it to the big screen, things that were thought to be unfilmable before. So, I look forward to them.
But do NOT go see this movie. Do anything - even go to the dentist - rather than sit through this.
Dull as dull can be
21 December 2014
Like watching paint dry. Boring to a mind-numbing degree. How many times can we see Katniss be horrified and/or emotionally distraught? Maybe the filmmakers thought they were adding depth to their characters. Well, they were wrong. Instead we, the audience, sit through one scene after another in which really nothing happens at all. This whole thing could have easily been compressed down to 40 minutes and then we could have had the rest of the book as the rest of the film. This felt very much like they were stretching it out so they could make two movies - which is the new thing to do in Hollywood with these franchises. Not good storytelling.
Cloud Atlas
(2012)
An Excellent Effort
9 December 2012
I don't really see what is so controversial here. Yes, the film plays around with structure - but audiences are used to seeing things like "Lost" and "Treme" and "Boardwalk Empire" where several stories are interlaced into a narrative that eventually all comes together. Is the big hoopla that this is a film and not a TV show? So what?
This is a really interesting film that forces you to engage with it in order to understand and enjoy it. Maybe that's the problem - some people are busy texting or talking instead of watching and thinking. In much the same way, Kubrick's films are boring as anything unless you actively participate in the film. Same with Tarkovsky.
And this is easily the Wachowskis best work to date. They have gone far beyond "The Matrix" and need to start being taken seriously as filmmakers. And Tykwer is great - anyone who could manage to pull of a film adaptation of PERFUME is okay in my book, and this is a worthy effort on his part.
Are there some issues? Sure. The message kinds of beats you over the head (but it does in the book as well), there could be more subtlety, maybe it would have been better suited to a TV mini-series so we could have got deeper into the cultures being explored. But just look at what they've managed to squeeze into 172 minutes. There is a LOT going on and it really isn't that difficult to follow.
Bottom line: the film is intriguing and quite beautiful, telling several stories at once and making numerous connections throughout (I caught some but I am sure there are many more through-line images and items that will reveal themselves in further viewings). Is it as complete as the book? No. Of course not. But it does a pretty good job of translating the book to the language of cinema. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is that it manages to be emotionally engaging despite the chopped up structure of the storytelling. That's quite a feat.
Interestingly, seeing what they did with the screen adaptation made me appreciate the book more. There really is a LOT in David Mitchell's novel and yes, I thought it a bit of a shame that we couldn't get more of that detail in the film.
Credit also has to go to the actors, especially Tom Hanks. Hanks really did a fantastic job with all his different characters. It looks like the cast had a lot of fun while doing this.
If you go to the movies often, and love the cinema, then this is a film you really ought to see, and think about and talk about. If you only go to the movies twice a year, and think of cinema as just another in a string of distractions and entertainment, maybe not. I'm not saying this is a "serious" film for "serious" film people - but if Adam Sandler or "Fast and Furious" is more your speed, you probably won't like this.
This is a really interesting film that forces you to engage with it in order to understand and enjoy it. Maybe that's the problem - some people are busy texting or talking instead of watching and thinking. In much the same way, Kubrick's films are boring as anything unless you actively participate in the film. Same with Tarkovsky.
And this is easily the Wachowskis best work to date. They have gone far beyond "The Matrix" and need to start being taken seriously as filmmakers. And Tykwer is great - anyone who could manage to pull of a film adaptation of PERFUME is okay in my book, and this is a worthy effort on his part.
Are there some issues? Sure. The message kinds of beats you over the head (but it does in the book as well), there could be more subtlety, maybe it would have been better suited to a TV mini-series so we could have got deeper into the cultures being explored. But just look at what they've managed to squeeze into 172 minutes. There is a LOT going on and it really isn't that difficult to follow.
Bottom line: the film is intriguing and quite beautiful, telling several stories at once and making numerous connections throughout (I caught some but I am sure there are many more through-line images and items that will reveal themselves in further viewings). Is it as complete as the book? No. Of course not. But it does a pretty good job of translating the book to the language of cinema. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is that it manages to be emotionally engaging despite the chopped up structure of the storytelling. That's quite a feat.
Interestingly, seeing what they did with the screen adaptation made me appreciate the book more. There really is a LOT in David Mitchell's novel and yes, I thought it a bit of a shame that we couldn't get more of that detail in the film.
Credit also has to go to the actors, especially Tom Hanks. Hanks really did a fantastic job with all his different characters. It looks like the cast had a lot of fun while doing this.
If you go to the movies often, and love the cinema, then this is a film you really ought to see, and think about and talk about. If you only go to the movies twice a year, and think of cinema as just another in a string of distractions and entertainment, maybe not. I'm not saying this is a "serious" film for "serious" film people - but if Adam Sandler or "Fast and Furious" is more your speed, you probably won't like this.
Tell Your Friends