Archive | February, 2013

‘Cloud Atlas’ (2012): a science fiction ‘Middlemarch’!

28 Feb

Cloud Atlas-PosterSix different stories, set across hundreds of years and featuring a massive cast of A-list stars spread over three hours is an inarguably lofty and ambitious concept by anybody’s standards. However, if anyone is up to the task it’s Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, Paris, je t’aime) and the Wachowski siblings (The Matrix movies, V for Vendetta), the trio handling both the production and direction duties with Cloud Atlas. What could have quite easily been a disaster turns out to be a sprawling, imaginative and very entertaining science fiction epic that will leave you pondering in the aisles.

Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Doona Bae and many more star in the luminous Cloud Atlas, a grandiose space drama concerned with the transience of love. The film is a quilt interwoven with a sextet of narratives, each wildly dissimilar in terms of plot but possessing a common theme: interconnectivity. Without giving anything away, stories range from the trials and tribulations of a gay couple forced apart by society, to anthropomorphic deus ex machina concerns in a futuristic Neo-Seoul, to a comedy about a bumbling elderly man to a cop drama-style nuclear power conspiracy set in the 70’s. This isn’t even all of them: Cloud Atlas is an enormous movie.

Most of the aforementioned actors and actresses are in each story, and often with incredibly varied roles, as gender and race are switched around like pieces on a chessboard (Halle Berry is an Asian man at one point, a white Jewish lady at another). The movie is so stuffed with actors and actresses that you’ll find yourself exclaiming “Oh look, there’s Susan Sarandon. Is that James D’Arcy? Woah, it’s Jim Sturgess! Is that Hugo Weaving or Kathy Bates?” and the like rather frequently (disclaimer: Bates is not in Cloud Atlas, though Weaving does his most convincing impression). Faces are painted but still recycled, yet not to the point of annoyance and/or confusion. It must be noted that Sarandon is the most effective reverse-drag (king?) I’ve ever seen. Also, you’ll no doubt be pleased to hear that Hugh Grant remains the most contemptible human being ever spawned.

Riding on the notion that love is timeless, transcendental and barrier-defying, the heady and quite spacey concept may seem like the pseudo-intellectual folly of a high twenty-something philosophy student, it all builds up to an intensely satisfying emotional conclusion that truly pays off. This relies heavily on each sub-story working, and though they may vary intensely in terms of dramatic style (the gay couple’s story is eloquently heart-wrenching, while futuristic Seoul features hilariously bad special effects that would make Battlestar Galactica blush), there isn’t a weak one among them. However, a ethereal, post-apocalyptic landscape features both embarrassingly hilarious silly accents and some rather overt Tolkien creature-design pilferage. Basically, there are Orcs.

Broadbent and Whishaw are both excellent in this.

Broadbent and Whishaw are both excellent in this.

The various different stories aren’t played one after another like vignettes; rather, the focus shifts from subplot to subplot, often very jarringly and without warning. Over the course of the movie’s 172-minute duration everything from romantic tragedies to elaborate Prison Break-style escapades take place, via blackmailing composers and laughable prosthetics. One could argue that most of the six stories couldn’t be their own movie; this is a bit of a non-argument, however, as each one compliments the other and contributes to the film’s overall quality. It would be removing a gear from a machine and complaining that it’s not a machine in its own right: nonsensical, and missing the point.

People may baulk at the run-time, but I must confess that at no point was I bored. The film throws you in at the deep end at the very beginning, and you, the viewer, are forced to catch up and piece together what little information you’re initially given to figure out what the hell’s going on. A rather self-deprecating note is given near the start which ironically bemoans the triviality and cliché of flashbacks in fiction; this scene is, rather pleasingly, one of many flashbacks, dreams or memories found in the movie. Comical effects notwithstanding, there are no real major flaws with this film, though I have no doubt many will find the concept of transcontinental and, eventually, inter-planetary love a bit too much. This is not a ‘simple’ movie; it requires a degree of effort on the viewer’s part.

Cloud Atlas is a surprisingly awesome film. The best live action movie that either Berry or Hanks have done in years, it features legions of reputable actors and actresses excelling at their craft. The stories are great and individually fascinating, yet combine to form a rather spectacular cosmic tale. Go watch it now, preferably on the big screen!

Simon says: even the meaning behind the film’s name is explained masterfully. I love this movie!

Hey ‘Mama’ (2013) but we’re all boring as hell nowwww!

26 Feb

Mama-movie-posterIt’s horror movie time! Directed by the legendary Guillermo del Toro, Mama stars Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as struggling uncle Lucas, whose orphaned daughters Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse) are recently rediscovered in a remote log cabin in the snowy mountains. Feral as a result of abandonment, Lucas takes them in along with his girlfriend, a punk rock bassist (who inexplicably drives one of those flower-power hippie Volkswagens from the sixties) played by Jessica Chastain. However, the girls speak of a ghostly being they call ‘Mama’, and spookiness follows them at every turn.

Lets break out the traditional horror movie checklist of clichés: haunted house? Check. Isolated cabin in the woods? Check. Creepy/potentially possessed children? Check. Restless spirits with an unfulfilled life? Check. A rising crescendo of violins to signal an upcoming scare? Check. The influence of recent ‘found footage’ films (Grave Encounters, Quarantine, those horrendous Paranormal Activity movies) is obvious here: though Mama isn’t shot in this format, several of the camera angles play with the fact that we the viewers can see more than the characters can. In general, the best horror films are those which play with the genre and use the established template as a springboard to add something new to the mix; aside from competent acting, Mama brings nothing unusual to the table.

However, the film’s main flaw, which happened right at the beginning and completely took me out of it, is that the bad guy is revealed almost instantly. Sure she does some horrifying things throughout the course of the movie, but since the veil of mystique has been lifted that extra dimension of horror just isn’t there. In fact, once you get a good look at her, you’ll find that Mama herself isn’t actually very frightening in appearance – she looks like the girl from The Ring mixed with one of those Easter Island heads. I laughed more than I jumped, not only due to her dopey face, but also because each scare is promptly telegraphed by either the aforementioned, over-exuberant string sections or by one of the girls literally gawking at that which they expect us to be shocked by moments later.

All of this said, Mama does bear the traditional high production that one comes to expect from a Del Toro flick.  There are a handful of awesomely animated flashback/dream sequences which vary from nuns being stabbed in the left boob to guys huddling under bridges and pointing at things. Chastain wakes up a few pounds lighter from dreams so many times that it can actually be hard to distinguish reality from fiction at times. A clever narrative technique, or just poor editing and scriptwriting? Ultimately the latter, for ‘it was all a dream’ is one of the cardinal sins of effective storytelling; it just seems cheap. The lighting is really well done, and the effects on the ghostly apparition are detailed – she slithers in and out of ajar windows/closets with a silky aplomb. Shame about her face, though!

As unoriginal and contrived as they come, Mama is part of that irritating breed of horror movies which rely on cheap jumpy scare-tactics rather than inducing any real feelings of genuine horror. Add to this an occasionally confusing script and contemptible plot devices (seriously, aren’t we all done with characters randomly falling into comas?) and what you get is an underwhelming if characteristically pretty film from del Toro.

Simon says: more like ‘Mehmeh’. Amirite amirite!?

Oscars 2013 – Results, Reactions, Snubs and General Fallout.

25 Feb

OscarsThe 85th Academy Awards (or, The Oscars) is now done and dusted. Having forsaken the opportunity to stay up all night to watch the ceremony (the show begins at midnight here in Ireland; scandalous, right?) in order to actually sleep for once, I was actually mostly pleased with the results upon hearing them this morning over the radio. Seth MacFarlane’s tiresome antics aside, the show was as glitzy and glamorous as always. Below are my reactions, judgements and other ideas regarding this year’s Oscars.

Best Picture

Winner: Argo

I have absolutely no qualms with this whatsoever. Of all of the nominees, no other film really captivated me in the same way Affleck’s masterpiece did. I outlined my love for this movie quite clearly in my review, and my opinion certainly has not changed. Lincoln was a similar masterpiece, Django Unchained was heaps of fun and Life of Pi was a feast for the eyes – but none matched the sheer virtuosity that was Argo.

Affleck’s movie holds an interesting stat: it is the first film since 1989’s Driving Miss Daisy to win Best Picture without a directing nomination. The two fields usually line up, however this year’s ceremony is a bit of an anomaly in that only two of the nine Best Picture nominations were also up for directing awards – that was Lincoln and Spielberg, and Life of Pi and Ang Lee.

Best Director

Winner: Ang Lee for Life of Pi

Not so sure about this one. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked Life of Pi and felt it worthy of some recognition, certainly from a technical standpoint. But Best Director? Nah, the movie wasn’t that great. It truly was a visual treat, and I admire the effort to produce a philosophically innocuous ending, but had this maddeningly unnecessary framing device and a Coldplay song was used in the advertisement – unforgivable. However, I understand why the Academy chose the way they did: they see this as the make-good for depriving Lee of his more than justified 2005 Oscar for Brokeback Mountain. Though the latter is a vastly superior film, I congratulate Lee on this year’s accolade.

The crew behind Argo enjoying their much-deserved time in the spotlight.

The crew behind Argo enjoying their much-deserved time in the spotlight.

Best Actor

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln

A no-brainer really. Day-Lewis’ magnificent and classy performance in Spielberg’s epic cements what we already knew about the man – he is a master of his craft. The only real competition he had this time round was against a similarly legendary actor – Denzel Washington, for Flight. Bradley Cooper was great in Silver Linings Playbook but doesn’t hold a candle to either of these behemoths; Hugh Jackman deserves nothing for Les Mis, and though I love Joaquin Phoenix as an actor, he was hardly the most interesting aspect of The Master. Any other day, Washington would have won: but Day-Lewis is just too awesome for him.

Best Supporting Actor

Winner: Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained

I love (read: LOVE!) that Christoph Waltz won in this category, because frankly he is the main reason why Django Unchained is so much fun. Jamie Foxx is great too, as are the other supporting roles, but Waltz really made this film. A bit of an upset – Tommy Lee Jones was the bookies’ favourite for Lincoln, and he would have deserved it too. Also noteworthy is that Waltz previously won an Oscar for a relatively similar role in a relatively similar movie (Inglorious Basterds). But Django Unchained would have been a far less interesting, funny and generally unenjoyable movie without Waltz; Lincoln would have still ruled without Jones. I would have enjoyed seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman win either – his crazy cult leader character was easily the best part of The Master.

Best Actress

Winner: Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook

The Best Actress award was such a close race that it really could have gone any way; the unpredictability of this category made it, for me, the most interesting. Naomi Watts’ performance in The Impossible was quite good (my problems with that movie lay elsewhere) though I find Jessica Chastain’s nomination a bit of a stretch. Two records were smashed this time: both the oldest and youngest actresses ever nominated featured – Emmanuelle Riva for Amour and Quvenzhané Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild, respectively. One of them winning would have been interesting, though I do not begrudge Jennifer Lawrence on her win. She was great in Silver Linings Playbook!

Best Supporting Actress

Winner: Anne Hathaway for Les Misérables

UUGGGHHH! I despise Les Mis: everything from its incredibly close-up shots of people’s mouths to the lacklustre vocals just irked me the wrong way. I have never suffered more in a cinema than I did at that screening. However, I think Anne Hathaway deserves an award for two reasons: one, she was the sole redeeming feature of that dreadful musical, and secondly that her performance as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises earns her at least a degree of recognition. Amy Adams had a subtle but fantastic role in The Master, and Sally Field more than deserved her nomination for Lincoln. I loved Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook, though I must admit that The Sessions, and therefore Helen Hunt’s role, completely passed me by. Must catch up with that one!

Oscar Winners! L-R: Daniel Day-Lewis, Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway, Christoph Waltz.

Best Animated Feature

Winner: Brave

Oh, this one infuriates me. All five nominees vary from good to excellent, and they pick the only one in the lower end of that spectrum? Aside from her gorgeously-animated hairdo, Brave is an entirely forgettable (not to mention rather dull) hiccup from Pixar. Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph deserved the title most of all, though Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie is quite an underrated little gem, and would have been a great win for him. ParaNorman is an equally fun and rather lovely 3D effort also worthy of being voted Best Animated Feature, as is The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! Basically, any film other than Brave and I’d have been happy. Seriously though, who in their right mind prefers it to something as magnificent as Wreck-It Ralph!?

I don’t have enough to say on each of the other categories, so here’s just a few tidbits:

  • Amour is a fabulous film and I’m glad it’s getting the international recognition it deserves. Je l’adore!
  • The fact that How to Survive a Plague didn’t win Best Documentary – Feature really annoys me. Had the Academy not mostly been comprised of old, white, straight men, I guarantee this result would have been different. Perhaps the best documentary I’ve ever seen.
  • Paperboy was an absolutely delicious starter for Wreck-It Ralph. Such a charming little production!
  • I’m not that into Adele’s song for Skyfall, and I’m no Adele hater. I think her strength is in her range, which isn’t demonstrated that well in this particular tune.
  • How on Earth did bloody Les Misérables beat The Hobbit for Best Makeup and Hairstyling!? The latter is so intricately detailed, with not only ridiculous amounts of makeup and madcap hairdos but also lots of cosmetic games being played with height and depth perception; in the former, people are made to look unclean, and fail, because they remain impossibly beautiful (lookin’ at you, Hathaway). An enigma which I shall never understand.
  • Finally, Life of Pi is probably the most deserving in its category for Best Cinematography. However, The Master is noticeable by its exclusion. Its colour coding, camera angles and oddball musical interludes are probably the most subtly wonderful of the lot!

Simon says: which year do I get my invite!?

Apparently it’s ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’ (2013).

23 Feb
Note: this quote is not uttered once.

Note: this quote is not uttered once.

Bruce Willis returns as the stalwart bravado John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard, who this time must travel to Russia to figure out what’s going on with his missing son Jack (Jai Courtney). Shortly after arriving, the two rendez-vous and the tables are turned, while the stakes are simultaneously upped. Can McClane save the day, while at the same time keeping his renegade son in check?

As a massive Die Hard fan, I was more than pumped for this movie. What with the original being perhaps my favourite stereotypical explosion-happy action film, and me liking all of the previous sequels (Die Hard 4.0 is awesome, screw the haters!) this one admittedly had a lot to live up to. Choosing John Moore (Max Payne, that shocking 2006 Omen remake) should have sent red flags flying immediately, but I was not prepared for the sheer horror that I experienced in the cinema that fateful day. A Good Day to Die Hard is the worst of the lot by a considerable margin, and the main reason is simple: it’s not fun. All previous Die Hard films, which vary wildly in terms of technical prowess, script quality and continuity have this overriding sense of unabated entertainment. This time, McClane’s outing is just no fun.

The film stinks of functionality over substance; the fact that so much of the dialogue is in Russian results in it being already heavily subtitled, which means that miniscule translation is required for the foreign markets. Bruce Willis gives the most half-assed performance of his career to date – he clearly could care less about this movie and his involvement in it. McClane is uncharacteristically detestable and impossible to empathise with – and once the circumstances surrounding his son change, his presence isn’t even justified any more. He shoots and  runs countless people over, with no signs of police, for no good reason. He freely admits that he’s “on vacation”; all of the action and violence serves zero purpose, and it’s as if the film expects us as viewers to blindly accept this and just roll with it. Courtney and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (the obligatory out-of-place American female) are both too bland for words.

From a technical standpoint, the film also bombs. The camera angles are so jaunty – the film reverts to a nauseating pseudo-’shakeycam’ during the more uptempo scenes, but even during calm moments the camera wobbles uncontrollably, as if the goon behind the lens was holding it with their feet or something. A Good Day to Die Hard is cloaked in this mysterious turquoise tint: it pervades everything from the boring car chases to the even more dull quiet storytelling bits. A ham-fisted attempt at giving the film a grimy, underground tone, it merely results in making the film appear cheap and under-produced. The music is pure stock action movie shtick (lots and lots of vibrato on the strings) and is so obnoxiously bland that it really requires no further mention. At least the disaster doesn’t last too long – at ninety minutes, you’re in and out before you can get too mortally wounded.

A Die Hard film in name alone, this is by far the weakest entry in the series. Willis’ infuriatingly aloof performance coupled with nonsensical action and a frankly dumb script results in a frankly vile movie that was simply painful to watch. Perhaps the series should die hard if this is the tripe it is destined to spew out from now on. Heinous.

Simon says: a horrendous movie, don’t put yourself through the torture.

The Sparks is back! ‘Safe Haven’ (2013).

22 Feb

Safe Haven posterAnother week, another film based on a best-selling novel; this time, the filmic adaptation of Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven rears its rather pretty if empty head. Safe Haven follows the plot of the book to a tee: it presents a young woman, Katie (Julianne Hough) who escapes her old, troubled life in the city of Boston for a fresh start in a sleepy coastal town. However, remnants of her former life cannot be shaken, and elements of the new and the old collide in rather unspectacular ways.

Directed by Lasse Hallström, this film feels so much like an advertisement to come stay in Southport, North Carolina, where it was shot. Serene, and with consistently wonderful weather and unreasonably attractive people, if Safe Haven is at hit then bachelorettes will descend upon the small port town in their droves. While the drama is pleasant and the characters have a relative depth to them uncharacteristic of such romantic films, it is so formulaic you could probably look it up in a geometry book; pretty characters, awful dialogue, impossibly great weather and a fairly predictable antagonist. Hough and her fellow lead Josh Duhamel both play their parts well, but some incredibly hammy one-liners and dreadfully edited action scenes attempt to jeopardise their efforts.

Similar to Chocolat in terms of plot though could perhaps be more accurately labelled as the ‘anti-Notebook’, this movie works for the most part. Completely passable, watchable if unoriginal, this film would have been fine if underwhelming, if not for the ending. Once the climactic inferno has reached its height, Sparks throws this ridiculous, completely silly twist into the mix which is not only extremely out of place, but only serves to undermine all which has come before. It seems desperate in its unfeasibility, as if the director couldn’t fathom a reasonable way to pull the plug. Ultimately cheapening of the movie as a whole, it really is a terrible ending and one which for many, me included, will ruin the entire film.

Props must be given for staying true to the spirit of the novel: the movie version refuses to deviate from its source material, which could be seen as either its greatest strength or its Achilles’ heel, depending on the type of movie-goer you are. If you are a casual, undemanding fan of romance films based on airport fiction, then you are certainly the intended audience. However, on a technical level, Safe Haven fails. The aforementioned problems combined with really obvious colour coding (Boston is uniformly blue and dank, whereas Southport is brightly orange, even at night) will test the nerves of many. Safe Haven is set apart from Sparks’ other movies by having one of the most idiotic endings in movie history, though will doubtless still appeal to many.

Simon says: just go on holiday instead. Less bullshit twists!

[Written for The Student Standard]

As cartoons go, ‘Dwae-ji-ui wang (The King of Pigs)’ (2013) is brutal.

20 Feb

King-of-Pigs-2011-Movie-PosterKorean animation, hell Korean cinema in general is a genre of film which is almost entirely alien to me. Dwae-ji-ui wang (The King of Pigs) is my first foray into the fascinating wilderness known as Manhwa (essentially K-anime), and will probably be my only one for a long time – it’s not exactly a major industry here in Ireland. But the question is; does this movie make me want to see more of the same!?

Dwae-ji-ui wang is a cartoon, written and directed by Sang-ho Yeon, which follows the middle-aged Jung Jong-suk and Hwang Kyung-min as they recall the rather miserable childhood they had. A mixture of reminiscence and present-day drama, in recounting their not-so wonderful school days tears are shed, voices are raised and, penultimately, suspicions are confirmed.

This is easily the grittiest, unhappiest and darkest cartoons I’ve seen in a very long time, possibly ever. The tone is more bitter than the blackest of coffees, and the movie is so flowing with dread that it virtually permeates through the screen and elopes you in this inescapable, palpable misery. Most ‘dark’ films tend to have at least one positive element; nobody even smiles in this film, save the bullies who kick the stuffing out of the younger kids. Incredibly offensive language, extreme yet (mostly) realistic violence and taboos such as bullying, prostitution and masturbation combine to make this a gloriously upsetting film.

The above may sound like a criticism to some, but don’t get me wrong; I had a blast as this movie! I was hooked right from the start, and though I felt a sense of nauseating discomfort I praise the film for making me feel this way. Any movie which elicits that level of an emotional response from its viewer, regardless of genre, deserves a standing ovation, which this film actually received at its conclusion.

From a technical standpoint, Dwae-ji-ui wang also shines. Manhwa is similar to anime insofar as it tends to be more colourful than typical Western cartooning (even in this grimy mood), though it is less overt and exaggerated – no ridiculous clothes or impossible hairdos are to be found here, and peoples’ eyes do not resemble two colliding moons. The music is minimal, though it pops up at times of dramatic exposition, which it compounds marvellously.

The only complaints I have with this movie are so minor they barely warrant mentioning. As is always the danger with any foreign-language film, there is the inevitable typo in the subtitles, and it just so happens to be a particularly hated spelling error of mine; ‘principle’ appears when it should have read ‘principal’. Grr! Also, the camera has this odd habit of randomly zooming out and swooping about the place in this pseudo-3D effect. It takes you completely out of the film because it is uncharacteristic of the rest of the shots, and adds nothing to the story, tone or atmosphere at all. Finally, the ending gets progressively predictable, though it still packs an emotional punch.

These minor quibbles aside, Dwae-ji-ui wang is not only a fantastic piece of Asian cinema, but a brilliant film overall. Catch it if you can! (Special props to Jameson Dublin International Film Festival and the South Korean embassy for showing and supporting the film, respectively).

Simon says: an awesomely brutal introduction to Manhwa.

‘John Dies at the End’ (2013) – or does he?

19 Feb

John Dies at the End posterJohn Dies at the End is the spoiler-ific film adaptation of David Wong’s book of the same name, and I’m slowly realising that summarising it is no easy feat. Basically, two slacker-type dudes stumble upon this drug (a fuzzy, apparently sentient black mush known as ‘soy sauce’) that, when taken, allows them to see into the future, and through other dimensions. The film is intentionally confusing, but is it actually any good?

I’ve spent about twenty-four hours at this stage trying to determine my thoughts on this movie. I didn’t quite get it, but the film makes it perfectly clear that its logic is intentionally and paradoxically enigmatic, so do I detract points for convolutedness if Don Coscarelli wanted me to feel this way? I have come to the conclusion that I, like the movie itself, am just going to roll with its weirdness, and appreciate it for what it is – a babbling melting pot of insanity, violence and hilarious special effects.

This movie is an amalgamation of so many genres: one minute its giving off campy horror film vibes, the next blood is gushing 1980s’ ‘video nasty’-style, the next they’re dimension-hopping and talking to men in tinfoil suits. A keen sense of comedy underlines every moment of this film; it takes itself about as seriously as any viewer could ever hope to. What could have been a nauseatingly pretentious hipster circle-jerk turned out to be an only vaguely ironic rollercoaster ride of genre-bending and dogs driving trucks – its unadulterated sense of fun saves it from the depths of the highbrow, thick-spectacled wastelands.

Chase Williamson (who I’m certain is some hybrid of Jake Gyllenhaal and Josh Duhamel some film-loving mad scientist conjured up) plays an awesome lead role as David, while the John of the title is one Rob Mayes. Other well-known actors abound, though can be underused: Paul Giamatti is barely used save in the slightly-clunky but necessary framing device, and Glynn Turman (of Gremlins fame) has a semi-recurring role. The effects vary wildly from Evil Dead II-style puppeteering (no laughing moose heads though, unfortunately) to a laughably low-budget CGI-animated Cthulhu-type monstrosity. The arrival of the space men is so horribly done that I genuinely burst out laughing!

But is this a criticism? Frankly not; the wildly varying quality of the effects, combined with the sheer randomness of the script and dialogue, only add to the surreal charm that John Dies at the End exudes. What with the film revolving around the theme of drug-taking, that all ends don’t quite join up serves as a metaphor for the drug abuser’s frame of mind in general. Is the ‘soy sauce’ an allegory? Yeah, for LSD maybe, though I can’t fathom any deeper meaning right now. The novel upon which the film is based is even more ambiguous about the drug’s meaning, as the movie is too busy turning door handles into flaccid penises to worry too much about the specifics.

But I’m probably (read: definitely) reading way too far into this. John Dies at the End is a film which joyfully relishes in its silliness in a way akin to a pig’s amour for manure. Better than the majority of Coscarelli’s movies (still doesn’t quite beat The Beastmaster, however), this film is definitely worth a looksee!

Simon says: ingest something illicit and rent this movie now!

Interesting Literature

A Library of Literary Interestingness

Brian Finnegan

www.brianfinnegan.ie

beanmimo

Me and all of you

Metallomusikum

Music, Metal, Mayhem

The Neighborhood

Society online's creative conscious.

Waving at Magpies

There's no marmalade at Paddington Station.

niavsmiz

Productive procrastination from my final exams to compliment my final exams. Can't go wrong, right?

HarsH ReaLiTy

A Good Blog is Hard to Find

CinEnemA

some kind of wonderful

Talking Horror

A Podcast About All Things Horror

The Baggage Handler

I made the impossible easy in both worlds!

Hiking Photography

Beautiful photos of hiking and other outdoor adventures.

ScreenSeer

A look into film - past, present and future.

Frame Rates

It's about movies

Unbound Boxes Limping Gods

The writer gives life to a story, the reader keeps it alive.

The Lady's Sanctuary

Whisps and Whims, Writing, Wishes and Whispers.

Audio SeXXX

Eargasms found here!

feral love

night waste; an experiment in largely unedited nighttime musings & thoughts

Film Through Time.

A look at film through the years, in all shapes and forms.

Independent Cinema

Watching movies alone. Always.

Nameless Horror

Unspeakable Acts

Bib Overalls Film Blog

This is my personal blog about Bib overalls films and TV series. It's my first blog. You will find here informations, trailer videos, low-res images and personal comments/ratings. You will not find here complete videos, download links, shopping links etc.

film review london

concise movie reviews & news

The Silver Fox

I like to tell stories.

Keith Broni

Keith Broni's blog.

Ello world, it's me!'s Blog

whatever passes through my mind...

Dublin to Hollywood

Writing my way to Hollywood - one script at a time

theroboticcaterpillar

A great WordPress.com site

Poshknacker's Blog

coming proudly from left of your peripherals.

The Evolution of Eloquence

Improving the English language one letter at a time

The Noise Made By People

Reflections on music and life. But mostly music.

Lateral Love

"The time is always right to do what is right" ~ Martin Luther King Jr

Celluloid Wicker Man

Reviews, Essays and Analysis of Film and Art By Adam Scovell

Shouting From The Left

Combining Marxist/Humanist/Socialist ideals with satire to create a rhetoric which aims to deconstruct current political socio-cultural events.

Eye-Dancers

A site devoted to the Young Adult sci-fi/fantasy novel The Eye-Dancers

DGAF

Sounds way better than Cheese and Crackers.

Lonely Eskimo Films

We're just a team of friends that want to show the world how creative we can be :)

CURNBLOG

Movies, thoughts, thoughts about movies.

Little Thread Crafts

Stitching Away One Thread at a Time

Bad horror, Good times

Reviewing the best of the bad!