text:
HOTEL MUMBAI (2019) – Brutal Re-Telling of Mumbai Terrorist Attack
In 2008, terrorists stormed the famed Taj Hotel in Mumbai, India, killing and wounding hundreds of people. With only a miniscule police force outside the hotel, and special forces units hours away, it fell upon the hotel staff to protect the hotel's guests. HOTEL MUMBAI (2019) tells their story.
Unfortunately, it also tells the story of the actual terrorists, as the film attempts to point out that the terrorists were young men who were obviously duped by their unseen leader to carry out these vicious attacks. This part of the movie, although minor, doesn't work as well as the rest.
The best part of HOTEL MUMBAI is the stories it tells of the victims hiding inside the hotel.
Arjun (Dev Patel) is married, has a young son, and his wife is pregnant with their next child. He works at the hotel, and money is tight, and so he desperately needs this job. When he forgets his shoes, he's scolded by the head chef Oberoi (Anupam Kher) and told to go home, but he begs to stay, and Oberoi relents and offers him a spare pair of shoes in his office.
David (Armie Hammer) and Zahra (Nazanin Boniadi) are a multicultural couple. He's American and she's Indian. They're at the hotel with their baby and baby's nanny Sally (Tilda Cobham-Hervey).
Once the terrorists storm the hotel, head chef Oberoi is the one who pretty much organizes the resistance, helping to move as many guests as possible into the most secure area of the hotel.
As the terrorists move freely about the building, with special forces hours away, the story becomes more harrowing as the guests gradually begin to run out of options. There are only so many places they can hide, and the gunmen, armed with assault rifles and grenades, continue their onslaught with frightening persistence.
The scenes of death and carnage in HOTEL MUMBAI are brutal and difficult to watch. Some have suggested that these scenes border on the exploitative. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say that watching the gunmen march boldly through the hotel killing innocent people indiscriminately, taking their time about it because law enforcement was nowhere in sight, was wince inducing. But it also bolsters the story. The film makes clear the awful fate that awaits the guests if they're spotted by the terrorists.
HOTEL MUMBAI works best when following the plight of the survivors, the frightened guests, and the brave hotel staff who did their best to protect them. Writer/director Anthony Maras and screenwriter John Collee flesh out the characters in a relatively brief time. I really cared for all of these folks, which made the movie that more effective.
And the cast also helps. Oscar nominee Dev Patel comes closest to playing a lead character, as the main story is framed around Arjun. Patel, who was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for LION (2016), and who also starred in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008) and CHAPPIE (2015), is as expected excellent here. Arjun is both a sympathetic and very brave character, putting his life on the line for the hotel guests.
Armie Hammer, who we just saw in ON THE BASIS OF SEX (2018) where he played Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband Martin, is very good here as David. The scenes where he makes his way back up to his room to rescue his baby and Sally are extremely compelling.
Nazanin Boniadi is equally as good as David's wife Zahra. She too has to brave the bloody corridors of the hotel to find her family. And Tilda Cobham-Hervey, who spends most of the movie protecting Zahra's and David's baby is excellent as the terrified Sally.
I also enjoyed Jason Isaacs, who recently played Captain Gabriel Lorca on STAR TREK: DISCOVERY (2017-18), and who also starred in the impressive horror movie A CURE FOR WELLNESS (2016). Here he plays a Russian operative named Vasili who's a guest at the hotel and befriends Zahra once the terrorists attack. Not only does he get some of the best lines in the film, but he's the only character in the movie inside the hotel with any kind of military experience.
My favorite performance in the film however probably belongs to Anupam Kher as head chef Oberoi. He makes Oberoi the ultimate professional, and when he's tasked with protecting the guests, he accepts the challenge and does what he can. What I particularly liked about this character and Kher's performance is that he doesn't suddenly become an action hero. He's a chef, and what he can do to help these people is limited. The help he can offer is based on his knowledge of the hotel, knowing where the safest place is to keep the guests, and also his cool demeanor as head chef serves him well in keeping the people calm.
Kher was also memorable in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (2012) and THE BIG SICK (2016). He's a character actor who makes his mark every time I see him in a movie, even if he's playing a relatively small role.
As I said, HOTEL MUMBAI also portrays the terrorists as young men pretty much brainwashed by their unseen leader who speaks to them on the phone and coldly encourages them to kill as many people as possible, all in the name of Allah. While the film should be commended for taking this approach— it's always a good idea to present as many sides to a story as possible— it didn't really win me over. Watching them brutally murder people, I didn't really want to know anything about them, nor did I feel sympathy for them. In fact, I probably would have enjoyed the movie more had it not featured any background on these killers at all. Intellectually, I understood the approach, but emotionally I rebelled against it.
The film does a better job pointing out that the Muslim terrorists do not represent all Muslims. Zahra is also Muslim, and her confrontation with one of the terrorists, one of the most riveting scenes in the movie, is symbolic of this difference.
The other subplot that also really works is the small security force which realizes that even though they are outmanned and outgunned, they have to do something to fight back, and so they venture back into the hotel in an attempt to commandeer the security cameras so they can at least get a fix on the terrorists' positions inside the hotel. Theirs is also a harrowing story.
HOTEL MUMBAI is a riveting and oftentimes disturbing re-telling of the deadly terrorist attack on the Taj Hotel. I hesitate to say I enjoyed this film because it's not a comfortable movie to sit through, but it succeeds in telling its edge-of-your seat story of a small group of hotel guests and staff who banded together to fight for their survival against a merciless group of vicious gunmen.
While I may not have "enjoyed" it, I highly recommend it.
Books by Michael Arruda:
New in 2019! DARK CORNERS, Michael Arruda's second short story collection, contains ten tales of horror, six reprints and four stories original to this collection.
Waiting for you in Dark Corners are tales of vampires, monsters, werewolves, demonic circus animals, and eternal darkness. Be prepared to be both frightened and entertained. You never know what you will find lurking in dark corners.
Ebook: $3.99. Available at http://www.crossroadspress.com and at Amazon.com. Print on demand version available at https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949914437.
TIME FRAME, science fiction novel by Michael Arruda.
How far would you go to save your family? Would you change the course of time? That's the decision facing Adam Cabral in this mind-bending science fiction adventure by Michael Arruda.
Ebook version: $2.99. Available at http://www.crossroadpress.com. Print version: $18.00. Includes postage! Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.
IN THE SPOOKLIGHT, movie review collection by Michael Arruda.
Michael Arruda reviews horror movies throughout history, from the silent classics of the 1920s, Universal horror from the 1930s-40s, Hammer Films of the 1950s-70s, all the way through the instant classics of today. If you like to read about horror movies, this is the book for you!
Ebook version: $4.99. Available at http://www.crossroadpress.com. Print version: $18.00. Includes postage. Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.
FOR THE LOVE OF HORROR, first short story collection by Michael Arruda.
Print cover
Ebook cover
Michael Arruda's first short story collection, featuring a wraparound story which links all the tales together, asks the question: can you have a relationship when your partner is surrounded by the supernatural? If you thought normal relationships were difficult, wait to you read about what the folks in these stories have to deal with. For the love of horror!
Academy Awards Action movie Adventure movies Dramas Historical dramas historical fiction Michael Arruda movie reviews Thrillers Uncategorized action movies Anupam Kher Armie Hammer Dev Patel Dramas Historical Dramas HOTEL MUMBAI (2019) HOTEL MUMBAI (2019) movie review HOTEL MUMBAI (2019) review Jason Isaacs Michael Arruda movie review movies about terrorists Movies based on a true story Nazanin Boniadi Thriller violent movies
Michael's Musings: United We Stand, Divided We're— Streaming?
It's commonly believed, and rightly so, that we live in an extremely divided society here in 2019, especially politically. Yup, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the political divides which exist today aren't among the most divisive we've experienced in a long time.
Similarly, we're also divided by our home entertainment. Oh, I don't mean by what we like and don't like, but rather, by what we have access to. Specifically, I'm talking about streaming services.
There are a lot of them out there, comparable in price and quality.
For me, I have Netflix. I was on board when they only offered DVDs, and when they made the switch to streaming, I followed along and loved it even more. The price is right, and they provide tons of movies and TV shows. Sure, there are things they don't have, but they offer so much. I'm never going to run out of things to watch, and so I don't mind that some of my favorite movies aren't available there. Most of these favorite movies I own on DVD/Blu-ray anyway.
However, what I don't have is what's available on the other services. To get that, obviously, you have to buy the other services. Each. One. Separately. And so there's CBS All Access, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Sling TV, to name just a few. And there'll be more. For instance very soon Disney will be launching its own streaming service.
Take your pick. Or buy them all. If you can afford them. And that's a big if. So right now we don't have access to the same programming, unless we pay for it, which means we're watching different things. No big deal. Right?
In the old days of broadcast and network TV this wouldn't have been a problem. Everyone in the nation could tune into their favorite programs if they wanted to because they were available to all, and they were free.
Access to television wasn't part of my grandparents' budget. It's part of mine. And yours.
So, in a way, we've gone backwards, and whenever society moves backwards, that's not a good thing.
And what happens if the same thing occurs with our news access? As more people move away from cable TV, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and since broadcast TV doesn't exist anymore, access to news is shrinking.
Sure, you can get news online, but let's say it becomes harder to do so. Let's say people stop making the time to read online news, or their news feeds grow increasingly partisan and brief. Do we run the risk of becoming an uninformed society? Years ago, Walter Cronkite was famously associated with news coverage of major historic events like the JFK assassination and the moon landing. Can you imagine such events happening today but without news coverage? That's a scary concept.
It's also not realistic. Yet.
I mean, right now there's no shortage of news outlets, but what if this changes? What if we become a society so enamored with streaming services that's all we watch?
Now, I'm not arguing that technology is bad, or that we need to return to the "good old days of broadcast television" when there were only three major networks. I'm not saying that at all. Because given the choice between what streaming has to offer compared to television in the old days, I'll choose streaming every time.
And that's because our current streaming services are great. They provide tons of content which we can watch whenever we want. You can't get a better deal than what they provide.
Except when everyone and their grandmother offers a streaming service, forcing viewers to choose what they want to watch and charging them to pay for more services than they ultimately need.
It's a potentially bad precedent to put all the costs for the various streaming services on the consumer who I bet most likely cannot afford more than one or two of them, which then forces the consumer to pick and choose between them. You and I won't have access to the same programs.
In the end, if they continue to pop up and charge customers for exclusive programming, streaming services could become more alienating than we bargained for.
-END—
Michael Arruda opinion Michael's Musing Netflix movies Streaming Video Review Uncategorized broadcast television cable TV Michael's Musings Netflix opinion piece streaming services television
US (2019) – Ambitious Horror Movie Never Seems Real
I was really looking forward to seeing US (2019).
Written and directed by Jordan Peele, the man who gave us GET OUT (2017), one of my favorite movies from that year, US boasted creepy trailers and advanced critical acclaim.
Imagine my disappointment when the end credits rolled and I found myself realizing I had just sat through— a dud.
Yep, I didn't like US all that much. Didn't like it at all.
The film opens creepily enough. It's 1986, and a young girl is with her family at a beach boardwalk amusement park. The girl walks away and enters a house of mirrors on her own, where she has a bizarre and frightening experience. The film switches to present day where the girl Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) is now an adult with her own family: husband Gabe (Winston Duke), teenage daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and younger son Jason (Evan Alex).
They're a normal enough family and early on they're fun to watch. On vacation, they decide to go to the same beach boardwalk where Adelaide had her traumatic experience as a kid. How weird is that? I don't think I'd take my kids to a place that held such haunting memories for me, but anyway, throughout the vacation Adelaide can't help but feel that something bad is going to happen to her family. Of course she feels this! She's at the same place where she had her childhood trauma! Duh!
Her fears become reality when at night four mysterious figures show up outside their door, figures that look like another family. Young Jason nails it when he says "They're us." Because that's who they are, strange zombielike doppelgängers of the four family members.
And it's at this point in the film, where it introduces its horrific elements, where it should take off and soar, where for me, it simply all unravels, and I lost interest.
Not for reasons usually associated with a bad horror movie.
For starters, US is a very ambitious movie, in terms of theme and symbolic images. It plays like a college thesis. There's a lot going on, but for me, its undoing is a lack of believability and ultimately a lack of emotion. It's a rare thing for me to like a movie that doesn't move me emotionally, and US didn't move me one iota, mostly because the threat never seemed real to me, and so I never was full on board with the plight of these characters.
Sure, I appreciated what the film was saying, I understood why it was saying it, but I didn't believe the way it was saying it. Basically, there are two versions of this family, and as the film later shows, two versions of a lot of families, and when the alternate Adelaide responds to the question of who is she with the answer, "We're Americans," you get the point of the two Americas. The alternate Americans are dressed in red, not a friendly color these days. I get the symbolism.
But the story as told in US made little sense to me. The story of these people's origins never resonated with me as anything other than a symbolic treatise on our modern-day culture. As such, it distracted me from the proceedings and took away from the horror elements. The entire time the family was fighting for their lives I felt disconnected from them because their story played out less like the events in a movie and more like the pages of a college thesis paper.
So, there's a lot to digest here, and for people who like to analyze movies, US is the film for them. For people who enjoy horror movies, I'd wager to guess those folks might be a little disappointed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that the only good horror movie is a dumb horror movie. I love smart movies. But US tries too hard to be intellectual at the expense of being emotional.
The acting is excellent. Lupita Nyong'o excels as both Adelaide and the very chilling alternate version of her. Elizabeth Moss is equally as good as family friend Kitty and her evil doppelgänger.
Winston Duke is fun to watch as the relaxed amiable dad Gabe, although his "twin" is less effective as he lumbers around like a zombie and isn't as frightening as some of the others. Duke and Nyong'o, who both co-starred in BLACK PANTHER (2018), make for a realistic couple, one of the few parts of this movie I found believable.
Shahadi Wright Joseph is very good as daughter Zora, as is Evan Alex as son Jason.
One of the reasons I liked GET OUT so much was it was both a scary horror movie and an incisive commentary on race. Here, Jordan Peele is working with a much broader canvas. He's covering much more ground, but while US is a more ambitious film than GET OUT, it doesn't work nearly as well. For starters, its story just seemed way too convoluted to be credible.
And since it wasn't believable, I didn't feel for the characters, and as a result ultimately didn't care all that much for the movie.
And while there are plenty of creepy parts, I didn't find US all that scary either.
I predict that I may like US more with subsequent viewings, because there is a lot to absorb. But my initial reaction to it was akin to reading a poem ripe with figurative language that told a story so unreal it distracted from its metaphors. In short, the ambitious US never convinced me that what it was saying was real.
horror movies Marvel movies Michael Arruda movie reviews Thrillers Uncategorized Elizabeth Moss GET OUT (2017) Horror movies Jordan Peele Lupita Nyong'o Michael Arruda movie review US (2019) US (2019) movie review US (2019) review Winston Duke
IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: STEPHANIE (2017)
Shree Crooks as STEPHANIE (2017)
STEPHANIE (2017), a horror film about a little girl facing an unknown horrific threat all by her lonesome almost works.
What stops this flick from ultimately succeeding is a lack of courage on the part of the filmmakers to take this story to the deepest dark places it should have gone. Instead, we have a plot tweak midway through that changes everything, and the film is worse off for it.
When STEPHANIE opens, young Stephanie (Shree Crooks) is home alone, occupying herself with her imaginary stuffed animal friends, getting into mischief as any child would do left to their own devices. She attempts among other things to cook and clean on her own, running afoul of every day threats like broken glass on the floor while walking barefoot. You'll wince even before the supernatural elements are introduced. Just why she's by herself we're not exactly sure, although there seems to have been some sort of apocalyptic incident that has wiped out at the very least the population around her.
One night, as she brushes her teeth and plays in front of the bathroom mirror, she hears a strange noise coming from the darkness. She knows what it is. Evidently, there is some sort of "monster" which enters her house at times, and to escape, she has to hide and remain silent. She hears the monster foraging throughout the house, growling and sniffing for prey, and then it leaves.
Adding to the mystery there's also a dead body in her house, Stephanie's brother, who seems to have succumbed to whatever malady wiped out everyone else. Stephanie it appears is immune. But then one day, Stephanie's parents return, and while she is overjoyed to see them, she suddenly wonders why they left her alone in the first place.
And it's at this point in the movie where the plot changes, and from here on in, things just don't work as well because the story enters territory we've all seen before and any innovative freshness the film possessed earlier disappears.
Which is too bad because the first half of STEPHANIE is really, really good, and the biggest reason why is the performance by young actress Shree Crooks as Stephanie. I hesitate to give such high praise to such a young actress, but she's so good here she's nearly mesmerizing. Early on, when she has the run of the house, she's fun to watch, and later when the monster invades, you share in Stephanie's terror. Crooks does fear really well.
So, early on the story had me hooked. I wanted to know why Stephanie was alone and just what kind of monster kept breaking into her house. And I cared enough about young Stephanie that I was ready to watch a film about just one little girl on her own having to square off against a monstrous threat.
But ultimately this isn't the story STEPHANIE has to tell. Her parents arrive home, and the inevitable plot twist isn't up to snuff and only serves to steer the story into familiar territory, which is far less satisfying than what had come before it. Unfortunately, when all is said and done, STEPHANIE ends up being just a standard horror movie.
Frank Grillo and Anna Torv [recently of Netflix' MINDHUNTER (2017-19)] play Stephanie's parents, and while there's nothing wrong with their performances, they unfortunately appear in the film's inferior second half.
The screenplay by Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski tells two different stories, and I enjoyed the first story much better than the second. The first half of the story with Stephanie home alone works so well I was really looking forward to seeing how she was going to deal with the monster in her house, but that confrontation never happens.
Director Akiva Goldsman sets up some suspenseful scenes early on, especially when the monster invades the house. Goldsman also deserves plenty of credit for capturing such a powerful performance from such a young performer. Shree Crooks completely carries the first half of the movie all by her lonesome.
Later, when the story pivots, the scares are much more standard, the results more predictable.
STEPHANIE did not have a theatrical release and was instead marketed straight to video on demand. I saw it on Netflix.
As it stands, it's not a bad horror movie, but based on the way it started, it had the potential to be something very special, if only the initial story had been allowed to develop.
In spite of this, Shree Crooks delivers the performance of the movie. She's terrific throughout, and she's the main reason to see STEPHANIE.
horror movies In The Spooklight columns Michael Arruda movie reviews Michael Arruda reviews Monster movies mysteries Netflix movies Thrillers Uncategorized apocalyptic horror movies apocalyptic movies Horror movies horror movies about evil children In the Spooklight Michael Arruda movie review monster movies Netflix STEPHANIE (2017) STEPHANIE (2017) movie review STEPHANIE (2017) review
CAPTIVE STATE (2019) – Science Fiction Thriller Struggles Mightily To Tell Its Story
CAPTIVE STATE (2019) is a new science fiction thriller with some really neat ideas and a remarkable story to tell, but sadly— very sadly—- it also has a script that struggles mightily to tell it.
The movie gets off to a busy yet intriguing start with a bunch of information hurled at its audience immediately. There's been an alien invasion which has completely overwhelmed humankind, and the governments of the world have capitulated power to these superior beings who now control the Earth. As a result, the "haves" — people with power and money— have gotten stronger as they've been given positions of leadership, while the "have-nots" have gotten weaker, as they've been thrust into ghettos and hard-working mining jobs, which happens to be a perfect metaphor for what some say has been happening in the real world for the past few decades.
But all hope is not lost, as there are resistance fighters constantly operating in the shadows with the express purpose of taking down these all-powerful aliens. These resistance fighters believe the only thing the aliens are interested in is draining the Earth of its resources. They believe the aliens' end game is the destruction of the planet, even if the "haves" who enjoy plenty of power now refuse to see it.
So, the plot of the movie focuses on a small band of resistant fighters in Chicago as they work on a plan to strike back at their alien oppressors, while one of the "haves," police detective William Mulligan (John Goodman) does everything in his power to uncover this resistant cell and destroy them.
I really liked the idea behind CAPTIVE STATE. I enjoyed its story of resistance fighters trying to strike back against an all-powerful alien race which had been ruling the world for nearly a decade. I enjoyed the obvious symbolic references to what's going on in today's world, where people feel increasingly oppressed and powerless.
But there are far more things with CAPTIVE STATE that I didn't like. Let's start with the way it tells its story. The screenplay by Erica Beeney and director Rupert Wyatt seems to be purposefully confusing. Characters speak, and their meanings aren't clear. They make phone calls and send messages in code, but the audience doesn't know why nor do they understand the meanings.
Most of the movie is a collection of really cool looking scenes showing people slyly plotting resistance while cop William Mulligan hunts them down. It all looks good and sounds good with some effective music by Rob Simonsen, but very little of it makes sense. The writers forgot to include the audience on what's going on. It's one of those films where I'm sure the audience is going to spend most of the time scratching their heads rather than enjoying a suspenseful story.
It reminded me of a 1960s British spy thriller where the screenplay was purposefully obscure, or a movie which back in the old days would have been aired after midnight because prime time audiences wouldn't have had the patience for its lack of narrative. Some folks will no doubt absolutely love CAPTIVE STATE and won't see its narrative woes as a weakness, but for me, I prefer a story that is told in a more organized fashion than the one told here.
There are other problems as well. The biggest one for me is there wasn't a clear protagonist. The central characters in the movie are two brothers, Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders) and Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) whose parents were killed by the aliens in the film's opening moments. Rafe has become the face of the Chicago resistance, but since his character is officially dead, he lives in the shadows and is barely in the movie.
The main character is supposed to be Gabriel, the younger brother, as he's also a person the police are interested in, as they believe he can lead them to the resistance. But even though Gabriel is on-screen more than Rafe, he's not developed as a character either.
Then there's cop William Mulligan as played by John Goodman, who gruffly goes through the motions hunting down resistance fighters without showing any emotion.
Speaking of those resistance fighters, there's a whole bunch of them, none of whom we ever really get to know or care about.
Then there's the aliens themselves, which we hardly see. When we do see them, they reminded me of the types of creatures seen in the CLOVERFIELD universe, but we really don't see much of them at all here.
There is little that is visually stimulating or memorable in CAPTIVE STATE, nothing memorable like those huge hovering ships in DISTRICT 9 (2009), a film that did a better job telling its alien occupation story. There were also shades of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End here, with its story and theme of humans dealing with the occupation of a superior alien race, but the novel dealt with it in ways that are far superior to how it is handled in this movie.
The cast here also doesn't do a whole lot, and a lot of the problem is the screenplay which really doesn't develop the characters. John Goodman is okay as William Mulligan, but it is largely a one note performance. Unlike his role in 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE (2016) where he knocked it out of the park playing quite the frightening character, Goodman is stuck playing a man who is purposely unemotional for reasons that become clear later in the story.
Ashton Sanders, who starred in the Oscar-winning MOONLIGHT (2016), is decent enough as Gabriel, the character who should have been the main focus here had this film had a better script. There just really aren't any defining moments for Gabriel or ones that allow Sanders to truly shine in the role.
Jonathan Majors is allowed to do even less as older brother Rafe. There are a lot of solid actors in supporting roles here, but none of them get to do much of anything. Even Vera Farmiga can't save the day, as her role as a mysterious prostitute has little impact while she's on screen. Now, her character is important, as revealed later on, but that's how a lot of this movie is. Important details are relayed after characters are gone or situations have already happened. It just doesn't make for satisfying storytelling.
Even the end, when it's obvious what's happening, and what direction the plot is taking, the movie doesn't give the audience the benefit of a satisfying conclusion. It leaves things just a bit obscure. The trouble is, what's happening is not obscure, so why not just show the audience this instead of playing games and keeping important plot points hidden just for the sake of trying to be creative? It's a case of trying too hard to make a thought-provoking offbeat thriller. Sometimes straightforward storytelling is just plain better.
Director Rupert Wyatt does a nice job creating quick intense scenes of resistance fighters organizing and plotting but struggles with the big-ticket items like grand cinematic sequences and building suspense. Probably the best sequence in the movie is the major caper by the resistance to attack the aliens at Soldier Field. This sequence works well, even if its payoff isn't all that satisfying, but other than this, there's not a whole lot that's memorable about this movie.
For a science fiction thriller, it's not visually satisfying at all. As I said, there are no memorable images as found in DISTRICT 9, and the script is far inferior to the stories, dialogue, and character development found in recent science fiction films like ANNIHILATION (2018) and ARRIVAL (2016).
ANNIHILATION and ARRIVAL also had strong female leads and supporting characters. The women in CAPTIVE STATE are few and far between, and none of the major characters are women.
Rupert Wyatt also directed RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011), the first of the APES reboots, and a movie I enjoyed more than CAPTIVE STATE.
I really wanted to like CAPTIVE STATE. In fact, after its first five minutes, I was even more interested in the story it was about to tell, but what followed was a narrative that clearly struggled to move this intriguing story forward. Its characters were not developed, and as such there really wasn't anyone for the audience to identify with or root for. And the alien threat was barely shown and hardly explored.
So, at the end of the day, while I certainly did not hate CAPTIVE STATE, I left the theater disappointed.
A better script could have made CAPTIVE STATE a captivating science fiction thriller, but it's clear that this film did not have that script. The end result is a movie with impressive ideas and symbolism but with such a muddled narrative that its audience will be hard-pressed to enjoy them.
Action movie Alien invasion movies John Goodman Michael Arruda movie reviews science fiction Science Fiction movies science fiction novels Thrillers Uncategorized Vera Farmiga Alien invasion movies Ashton Sanders CAPTIVE STATE (2019) CAPTIVE STATE (2019) movie review CAPTIVE STATE (2019) review John Goodman Jonathan Majors science fiction science fiction movies science fiction thrillers Vera Farmiga
TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019) – Average Actioner Enjoys Strong Finish
TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019) is Netflix' latest foray into the big budget movie business. The film opened theatrically on March 6 and then streamed on Netflix on March 13, meaning it's available to everyone at home even while it's playing at theaters.
Netflix did the same thing with the Oscar nominated movie ROMA (2018). It's a move that is getting plenty of backlash from Hollywood, as heavy hitters like Steven Spielberg have spoken against this kind of release. I guess because they fear it takes away from box office dollars or delegitimizes the industry.
All I know is that as someone who's living on a strict budget, I liked the fact that this past weekend I didn't have to pay $13.00 for a movie ticket to see TRIPLE FRONTIER. I watched it in the comfort of my living room. I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this debate, but for now, I'm on the side of Netflix. Unless they simultaneously provide every theatrical release on their streaming service, I doubt it's going to influence my movie going habits all that much.
But back to TRIPLE FRONTIER.
TRIPLE FRONTIER is an action thriller about a group of special forces operatives who decide that after years of service they just weren't compensated properly, and so they agree to rob a drug dealer to give them the financial security they need. Hmm. Doesn't sound like the wisest idea to you? Me, neither, which is a major problem I had with this movie.
Anyway, Santiago "Pope" Garcia (Oscar Isaac) has been chasing down a drug lord named Lorea for a long time but has yet to catch him. At long last, with the help of one of his contacts on the inside, Yovanna (Adria Arjona) Pope finally locates the whereabouts of Lorea, inside a compound deep in the jungles of South America. Better yet, Lorea keeps all his money there as well, an insane amount that could make several people rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And so Pope rounds up his former war buddies, folks who nowadays are struggling financially even after their years of service, and offers them the chance to remedy all that. If they do this one job, take out the drug lord and steal his money, they'd be set for life.
The group includes William "Ironhead" Miller (Charlie Hunnam), Tom "Redfly" Davis (Ben Affleck), Ironhead's brother Ben (Garrett Hedlund) and Francisco "Catfish" Morales (Pedro Pascal). After some heavy-duty soul-searching, the group agrees to do the job, which of course is no surprise or otherwise we wouldn't have much of a movie!
That being said, it seems like a pretty dumb idea, and for these guys to be in on it so easily I thought strained credibility.
Anyhow, they set out to the jungles of South America where even with all their professional experience, things, of course, do not go as planned.
The best thing TRIPLE FRONTIER has going for it is its cast. With three very strong leads, the film survives a mediocre first half before its shifts into high gear for its latter stages.
Ben Affleck receives top billing although his character Redfly isn't really the main character in the film. Redfly is the oldest of the bunch and at first seems the wisest. In fact, the others don't want to go forward with this mission unless Redfly is in. Redfly is also the character who is suffering the most financially, struggling to support his teenage children.
Affleck is fine in the role, and his character's plight makes his decision later to jeopardize the mission by taking extra money make sense.
The central character in the film however is Pope, played by Oscar Isaac, as he's the character who brings the team together and continually pushes them to get the job done, even when the odds stack up against them. Isaac is a talented actor who's been in a lot of really good movies, films like OPERATION FINALE (2018), ANNIHILATION (2018), and EX MACHINA (2014). Of course, he's most known nowadays for his portrayal of pilot Poe Dameron in the new STAR WARS movies.
Isaac is excellent here in TRIPLE FRONTIER, and for me, his was the best performance in the film. You get the idea that this is something Pope wouldn't have done ten years ago–actually, none of these guys would have— but now he seems to be driven almost by anger that even after years of putting their lives on the line, they have nothing to show for it. He's almost obsessed with the mission, and his obsession stems from the need to seek justice for himself and his friends.
None of these guys come off as greedy.
Charlie Hunnam is an actor I have mixed feelings about. For the most part, I like him as an actor, but there are times when I find his performances grating. For example, I enjoyed him a lot as Jax Teller on the TV show SONS OF ANARCHY (2008-2014) but by the show's final season, I had grown so tired of Jax' character and Hunnam's performance that I almost couldn't watch it any longer.
His performances in the movies THE LOST CITY OF Z (2016) and KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD (2017) were both very good, yet I can't say that I enjoyed him all that much in either CRIMSON PEAK (2015) or PACIFIC RIM (2013). For the most part, here in TRIPLE FRONTIER, he's very good. I certainly believed that his Ironhead character was a special forces officer.
Both Pedro Pascal and Garrett Hedlund round out the cast nicely, and it's a good thing that these five guys deliver the goods because the film is pretty much focused on them and them alone from beginning to end.
One flaw in the film, however, regarding the cast, is that Adria Arjona who plays Pope's contact Yovanna isn't given much to do at all. Her character is reduced to not much more of an afterthought, which is a waste of Arjona's talent. Arjona has starred in the TV series TRUE DETECTIVE (2015) and the hard-hitting horror movie THE BELKO EXPERIMENT (2016). She's excellent in her few scenes here, but had her character been included more, the story would have been even better.
As it stands, the story is a mixed bag. The first half of the movie is rather slow and not all that interesting.
The screenplay by Mark Boal and director J.C. Chandor is stuck in familiar territory with its tale of folks seeing a huge loot of money as the answer to their life's prayers. Boal, who wrote the screenplays to the superior military movies THE HURT LOCKER (2008) and ZERO DARK THIRTY (2012) covered the rogue aspect of the military with more nuance in those films than he does here.
Things pick up for the second half of the film when the story jettisons its soul-searching and finally becomes an exciting action thriller. From the moment the robbery begins to afterwards, when things continually prove more difficult than expected, the story remains riveting.
It's also during the film's second half where director J.C. Chandor fares better as well, as he crafts some very exciting scenes, including a harrowing helicopter ride over a towering mountain range, a dangerous mountain climb, and a thrilling car chase through the jungle.
TRIPLE FRONTIER is an okay action thriller. Its second half is much better than its first, and while it's well-acted by its five main male actors, the absence of a major female character is certainly noticed here.
If you like testosterone-filled action movies and don't mind a sprinkle of conscience thrown in for good measure, you probably will enjoy TRIPLE FRONTIER, although it's not quite as hard-hitting as these types of action films need to be, nor is it as thought-provoking as it tries to be. The result is a rather average actioner that benefits from its three male leads and the fact that it certainly finishes stronger than it starts.
Academy Awards Action movie Adventure movies Ben Affleck movies Charlie Hunnam Michael Arruda movie reviews Netflix movies Thrillers Uncategorized War movies action movies adventure movies Ben Affleck Charlie Hunnam Michael Arruda movie review Military movies Netflix Oscar Isaac Steven Spielberg TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019) TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019) movie review TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019) review
CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019) – Exciting Character, Mediocre Movie
The best part of CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019) is Brie Larson's performance as the title character, a female superhero who kicks butt and takes guff from no man. The worst part is her origin story as told in this movie simply isn't all that interesting. In fact, it's all rather—dare I say it?— dull.
On the faraway planet of Hala, Vers (Brie Larson) is being trained by a member of the Kree race, Yon-Rogg (Jude Law) to combat terrorists, known as the Skrulls, but she is too emotional, and she continually fails in her training. As a result, she's sent to see the Supreme Intelligence (Annette Bening), a being who appears differently to everyone who sees her, taking the shape of someone important in the lives of the visiting individual, but Vers doesn't recognize the face of the Supreme Intelligence at all, and that's because she has a problem with her memory and cannot remember her past.
When she is captured by the Skrulls terrorists, they probe her mind, which allows Vers to see images of her past, and she realizes she was once on Earth. Both she and the Skrulls make their way to Earth during the 1990s, and it's here where she meets a young Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), and together they take on the alien threat.
Captain Marvel, as played by Brie Larson, is clearly the best part of CAPTAIN MARVEL She personifies confidence and resilience, standing up to the insults and catcalls of men, pretty much stamping them out. Of course, since this is a Marvel superhero movie, she's also about defeating the bad guys, and she does that well too. A little too well actually. No one in this film really stands up to her all that well, and that's because once she figures out who she is, she's pretty much unstoppable.
Larson is relaxed and confident in the lead role, and I enjoyed watching her throughout this movie. Sadly, she's the one bright spot in an otherwise dull vehicle. Even the girl power aspect isn't completely successful. Empowering women is a prominent theme here, and it works, but compared to a film like BLACK PANTHER (2018), which, thanks largely to Michael B. Jordan's performance, I thought had the most powerful message on race relations of all the films I saw in 2018, the theme here is only window dressing. It's clear what the film is trying to say, but it just doesn't say it with much conviction.
Likewise, the plight of the Skrulls, which ties in to today's current immigration crisis, fails to resonate. It's too superficial to make a serious impact.
Samuel L. Jackson returns yet again as Nick Fury, this time with a CGI face to make him look much younger, and to be honest, there was just something off-putting about his appearance. In short, it didn't work for me.
Jude Law makes for a very boring villain, while Ben Mendelson fares better as the shapeshifting Skrull Talos. Mendelson does a nice job imbuing the character with sympathy, and I have to say Talos was my favorite character in this movie other than Captain Marvel herself
And strangely, the liveliest character in the film is a cat named Goose. That's not saying a whole lot.
The screenplay by directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, and by Geneva Robertson-Dworet contains the signature Marvel humor, which works well throughout, and there are plenty of tie-ins to other Marvel movies, specifically the upcoming AVENGERS: ENDGAME (2019). Again, no problems here.
And it was fun to have the film set in the 1990s, which set up a lot of jokes, like Blockbuster Video stores, slow running computers, and very slow downloads.
But the story as a whole really did nothing for me. It also wasn't told all that clearly. The film suffers from a sloppy opening, and it takes a good twenty minutes or so for this one to truly get started.
I enjoyed DC's WONDER WOMAN (2017) more than I did CAPTAIN MARVEL. It told a better story, and did a better job presenting its lead character.
Directors Boden and Fleck struggle a bit at the helm of CAPTAIN MARVEL. In terms of visual satisfaction there aren't any complaints here. The film looks great. But I was not impressed at how this one told its story, and that's a combination of both the writing and the direction. I found the jumping around during the film's early moments, between dreams, memories, reality, flashbacks, planets, times, was all over the place and made for a very distracting beginning.
I also wasn't impressed by the pacing. There were far too many slow parts in this one.
CAPTAIN MARVEL is nowhere near as good or as fun as the Marvel films from 2018, BLACK PANTHER, AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, and ANT-MAN AND THE WASP. It's also not as good as the CAPTAIN AMERICA films. I did like it better than the first two THOR movies, and while Captain Marvel is certainly a far more likeable character than Doctor Strange, I preferred the Doctor's film to this one as well.
Which is too bad because Captain Marvel is an important character, a female superhero who uses the negative experiences from her youth to empower her to be the strongest hero she can be. I liked her a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing her again soon in the upcoming AVENGERS: ENDGAME which opens in April.
I also enjoyed the Stan Lee homage at the beginning of the movie.
And like all the Marvel superhero movies, there's an after-credit scene, and once more there are two of these. The first one is the more important one, with a tie-in to the next AVENGERS film, while the last one is the silly one, good for a laugh only. Stay only if you want that one last chuckle.
CAPTAIN MARVEL introduces an exciting new superhero to the Marvel cinematic universe, but does it in a movie that is not on par with their better films.
While I loved the character, I can't place the movie in Marvel's upper echelon of superhero films. It's one of their lesser entries for sure.
Action movie Adventure movies Marvel movies Michael Arruda movie reviews Uncategorized AVENGERS: ENDGAME Ben Mendelsohn Brie Larson Captain Marvel CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019) CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019) movie review CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019) review female superheroes Jude Law Marvel comics Marvel superhero movies Michael Arruda movie reviews movies with a strong female lead Samuel L. Jackson Stan Lee THE AVENGERS Wonder Woman
ISN'T IT ROMANTIC (2019) – Rom Com Spoof Short on Laughs
Posted on March 8, 2019 by marruda3
Sure is.
But is it funny? Er, not so much.
And therein lies the problem with ISN'T IT ROMANTIC (2019), the new rom com starring Rebel Wilson as an architect disillusioned with love, who after a bonk on the head wakes up and finds herself living inside the world of a romantic comedy. While the gimmick here is that Wilson's character has to deal with the very world she's spent her life making fun of, the problem is the film is funnier when it takes place in the real world because it's more fun watching Wilson taking potshots at reality than soaking up life in a romantic fantasy.
While architect Natalie (Rebel Wilson) is down on love, she actually has a pretty happy life. She's got a good job, a best friend at work, Whitney (Betty Gilpin), as well as a best guy friend at work Josh (Adam Devine) who tries but fails to catch her attention. So, while she slams both true love and romantic comedy movies, her life is a good one. She doesn't really need a romantic fantasy to save her, which definitely gets in the way of the film's major plot point.
After the clonk on the head, she awakes and finds herself living in a movie world, specifically the rom com. The handsome hunk she met briefly at a meeting, who was a complete jerk, Blake (Liam Hemsworth), now falls madly in love with Natalie. At this point, the film goes through all the rom com clichés with Natalie commenting on them throughout, since she knows these films inside and out. And it's in this fantasy world that she finally sees the light about Josh and realizes that perhaps it's with him that her future lies.
ISN'T IT ROMANTIC is an amiable enough movie but it's simply not all that funny. Again, the funniest bits are when Natalie is in the real world, at the beginning and end of the film. The main part of the film, where the story employs its gimmick of Natalie living inside a movie, is playful and light, but the laughs simply aren't there.
There's plenty of romance to be sure, but it's the kind that's superficial without resonance.
Rebel Wilson is a fun actress to watch, going all the way back to her role in BRIDESMAIDS (2011), and she's certainly enjoyable here, even if the material isn't all that sharp.
Liam Hemsworth chews up the scenery as handsome hunk Blake, and it's clear that he's having a good time throughout. Betty Gilpin is very good as Natalie's best friend Whitney, but her best scenes also occur when the film takes place in the real world. In the fantasy sequence, Whitney becomes Natalie's rival, a trope of the rom com, but sadly, it's a trope that isn't funny here.
Adam Devine is enjoyable to watch as Josh, the likable co-worker who has eyes for Natalie. Interestingly, his character remains the same in both the real and fantasy worlds.
Priyanka Chopra impresses as Isabella, a beautiful model who Josh saves from choking and then marries during the rom com scenes. Like Hemsworth, it's clear that Chopra is having fun throughout.
Probably my favorite performance in the movie belongs to Brandon Scott Jones who plays Donny, Natalie's irritable neighbor who in the rom com sequence becomes the stereotypical flamboyantly gay best friend. It's the liveliest performance in the film.
Screenwriters Erin Cardillo, Dana Fox, and Katie Silberman's main premise of Natalie entering the world of a rom com movie is okay, but it would have worked better had Natalie needed it more. Sure, her friends tell her she needs love, but she seems perfectly content without it. And the jokes just aren't all that funny.
Some of the jokes do work however, like the running gag of Natalie not being able to swear since she's living inside the world of a PG-13 romantic comedy. Likewise, the sequence where she's trying to have sex with Blake, but the film keeps cutting away since again it's rated PG-13 is good for some laughs. But there aren't a whole lot of these moments.
Director Todd Strauss-Schulson keeps things bright, happy, and romantic, but since this is supposed to be a rom com that pokes fun at the genre it's disappointing that the humor isn't all that sharp. The liveliest sequence in the movie is the closing dance number, a bit late in the game.
ISN'T IT ROMANTIC is a likable enough movie, but it falls way short of being the kind of send-up to the genre which it purports itself to be. Which means, at the end of the day, ISN'T IT ROMANTIC really isn't anything more than just another cliche-ridden rom com, even if it surrounds those clichés with lots of knowing winks and nods.
Comedies Michael Arruda movie reviews Michael Arruda reviews Uncategorized Comedy Film spoofs ISN'T IT ROMANTIC (2019) ISN'T IT ROMANTIC (2019) movie review ISN'T IT ROMANTIC (2019) review Michael Arruda movie review Rebel Wilson rom come Romance romantic comedy spoof
GRETA (2019) – Thriller Has Strong Performances, Weak Script
Maika Monroe and Chloe Grace Moretz in GRETA (2019).
GRETA (2019), a new thriller by writer/director Neil Jordan, who way back in the day gave us THE CRYING GAME (1992), features three strong performances by three very talented actresses, but unfortunately, they're stuck in a story that just never rings true.
Frances McCullen (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a young twenty-something who moves from Boston to New York City to share an apartment with her college roommate Erica (Maika Monroe). Frances is having a tough go of it, as her mother recently passed away, and she disapproves of the way her father Chris (Colm Feore) is dealing with the loss. In short, he's moved on. She hasn't.
When Frances finds a woman's handbag left on the subway train, she picks it up and brings it home. While Erica tries to convince her to keep the cash inside, Frances refuses. Instead, she returns the bag to its owner, a lonely widow named Greta (Isabelle Huppert). The two become friends, drawn together by their losses. While Erica tries to convince Frances that her relationship with Greta is weird and that she should be hanging out with people her own age— she's not going to meet any guys by spending all her time with Greta—, Frances ignores her friend's advice. All is well for a while, until Frances makes a discovery that reveals to her that Greta is not what she seems.
Not by a long shot.
And hence GRETA becomes a thriller, albeit not a very good one, which is too bad because I enjoyed the three actresses in this movie a lot.
I've been a big fan of Chloe Grace Moretz ever since her break-out role as Hit Girl in KICK-ASS (2010) when she was just 13. Moretz was also excellent as the young vampire in LET ME IN (2010) and as Carrie in the remake of CARRIE (2013). She's convincing here as a young woman who's been rocked by the death of her mother. She plays Frances as a sensitive youth, and so it makes sense that one, the loss of her mother would affect her so deeply, and two, she'd be vulnerable to Greta's entreaties. She also does terror really well, as late in the film when her character is placed in dire situations she makes her fear palpable.
Maika Monroe is also excellent as Frances' roommate and best friend Erica. Monroe starred in one of my favorite horror movies of recent years, IT FOLLOWS (2014). It was fun to watch Monroe and Moretz work together on-screen, and I thought they shared some nice chemistry. And later in the film, the script allows Erica to become the heroine, which was a nice touch, rather than have some male character swoop in to save the day.
And Isabelle Huppert is chilling as Greta once her dark side becomes exposed. Before that, she does a nice job making Greta a sympathetic widow, but unfortunately the sympathy gets tossed out the window once the script goes full throttle and turns Greta into a ridiculous one-note monster.
I so wanted to like this movie, because I really enjoyed the three leads so much, but the script is as bad as they are good.
Written by director Neil Jordan and Ray Wright, the screenplay goes way over the top much too soon. A thriller like this really needs to be nuanced and intelligent. This one hits you over the head like an iron frying pan. So much for nuance! When Frances makes her discovery, she's obviously upset, and so her initial reaction to flee Greta's home makes sense, but later, especially given how much Greta had recently meant to her, you'd expect her to at least hear Greta out, but she refuses, which sets Greta into stalker mode immediately. No build up, no doubt or wondering, just in your face crazy lady.
Greta's actions are so over the top they are almost laughable. As such, midway through, when this thriller should have had me on the edge of my seat, I simply stopped believing in it, and it didn't resonate anymore. I believed things even less when they became really crazy towards the end, which is a shame, because the final scenes are really well-acted by Moretz, Huppert, and Monroe.
And the story had plenty of opportunities to become something more. There were unexplored aspects to both Frances' and Greta's relationship as well as Frances' and Erica's. As it stands, it's all rather superficial. We don't know a lot about these people. We know Frances is still upset about her mother's death, but how close is she to Erica, for instance? At times they seem inseparable while at others they seem very distant.
And if we knew more about Greta, if her story was more nuanced than just crazy lady strikes back, this one would have had more sting.
Ray Wright also wrote the screenplay to the remake THE CRAZIES (2010), a film I liked much more than this one.
The three actresses dominate this movie, which is a good thing, since they have most of the screen time. Colm Feore, who we just saw in the horror film THE PRODIGY (2019) as the expert in reincarnation, gets a little screen time here as Frances' father. And Stephen Rea gets a thankless minuscule role as a private investigator hired to find Frances once she goes missing. He's not a very smart investigator, and as such he doesn't last long in this movie. Greta sees to that!
Director Neil Jordan seemed to be trying to make an intelligent thriller but like the actors he's let down by a superficial script. He also doesn't help his cause as there's nary a suspenseful scene in this one. Even towards the end, everything that happens is predictable. And when things get really insane, the scenes simply aren't as dark as they should be.
I can't say that I liked GRETA all that much, in spite of the impressive acting performances it features. Once we learn Greta's secret, the story becomes too ridiculous to be believable, and as such, I simply stopped caring about any of it.
GRETA takes what could have been a highbrow thriller and reduces it to melodramatic malarkey.
Ebook: $3.99. Available at http://www.crossroadspress.com and at Amazon.com. Print on demand version coming soon!
Chloe Grace Moretz Dramas Michael Arruda movie reviews mysteries Thrillers Uncategorized Chloe Grace Moretz GRETA (2019) GRETA (2019) movie review GRETA (2019) review Isabelle Huppert Maika Monroe Michael Arruda movie review Mystery Neil Jordan Stephen Rea Thriller
MEMORABLE MOVIE QUOTES: FRIGHT NIGHT (1985)
Chris Sarandon as vampire Jerry Dandrige in FRIGHT NIGHT (1985)
Welcome to "Fright Night!" For real.
That's Chris Sarandon as vampire Jerry Dandrige in one of my favorite vampire movies of all time, FRIGHT NIGHT (1985).
Welcome back to MEMORABLE MOVIE QUOTES, that column where we look at memorable quotes from the movies. Up today it's FRIGHT NIGHT, a surprising horror hit from 1985 which starred Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall. When I first saw this movie at the theater in 1985, I was hooked immediately. I liked it so much I saw it again a few days later.
There are lots of fun quotes from this movie, thanks to a lively and comedic script by Tom Holland, who also directed. I'm not usually a fan of comedic horror, but it works here in FRIGHT NIGHT because the humor is sharp and the horror genuine.
Here's a look at some of the more memorable lines from the movie:
One of the main reasons FRIGHT NIGHT works so well is that Chris Sarandon knocks it out of the park as vampire Jerry Dandrige. Sarandon is funny, sexy, and very evil. As such, he gets some of the best lines in the movie. It really is a shame Sarandon never played this role again. In his one turn as an undead, Sarandon played one of the cinema's' most memorable vampires.
One of my favorite sequences is when high schooler Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) who's been trying and failing to convince people that a vampire lives next door to him learns that a vampire cannot enter a home without being invited by someone inside, which makes him feel confident that he's safe. When his mother calls him to come downstairs to meet someone, he thinks nothing of it but is horrified to see Jerry Dandrige sitting in his living room.
JERRY: What's the matter, Charley? Afraid I'd never come over without being invited first?
Charley's mother laughs, as a shocked Charley looks on in disbelief. Jerry plays up the charm here for Charley's mother while keeping menacing undertones aimed at Charley.
JERRY: You're right. You're quite right. Of course, now that I've been made welcome, I'll probably drop by quite a bit. In fact, anytime I feel like it. With your mother's permission, of course.
Later, Jerry makes good on his promise and returns to threaten Charley:
JERRY: Now we wouldn't want to wake your mother, would we Charley? Then I'd have to kill her too. Right?
(He grabs Charley by the throat.)
Do you realize how much trouble you've caused me? Spying on me. Almost disturbing my sleep this afternoon. Telling policemen about me!
You deserve to die, boy. Of course… I could give you something I don't have. A choice. Forget about me, Charley. Forget about me, and I'll forget about you. What do you say, Charley?
And Charley responds by pulling out a cross and shoving it into Jerry's face, an action that doesn't sit well with the vampire.
In one of the film's better scenes, Jerry corners Charley's friend "Evil" Ed (Stephen Geoffreys) in an alley.
JERRY: Hello, Edward. You don't have to be afraid of me. I know what it's like being different. Only they won't pick on you anymore… or beat you up. I'll see to that. All you have to do is take my hand. Go on, Edward. Take my hand!
It's one of the better vampire scenes which involves a male on male seduction, and what makes it particularly effective isn't necessarily its sexual aspect but the fact that Jerry takes advantage of a vulnerable high school teen, which makes him all the more creepy. More than that, it makes him a genuine creep!
Speaking of "Evil" Ed, earlier in the movie he describes to Charley some of the murders which had been reported in their neighborhood.
EVIL ED: You know what I heard on the police band last night?
CHARLEY: What?
EVIL ED: That wasn't the only murder. The second in two days. And get this…both of them had their heads chopped off. Can you believe it?
CHARLEY: You're sick.
One of the more interesting characters in the movie is Jerry's live-in carpenter and human protector, Billy Cole (Jonathan Stark). He gets some of the more lively lines in the film, as in this scene where he catches Charley snooping around the basement of the house.
BILLY: Hey, Kid! What are you doing?
CHARLEY: Nothin'…
BILLY: Oh, yeah? Well, just see that it stays that way… kid.
Of course, the most memorable character in the movie other than vampire Jerry Dandrige is Peter Vincent, as played by Roddy McDowall. It's one of my all-time favorite McDowall performances. Peter Vincent is a former horror star, and his name of course comes from Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, but Peter Vincent is not really based on them. Vincent was a horror star who made a bunch of low-budget horror movies, and now he's making a living by hopping around various television markets hosting "Fright Night" movie programs which show his old movies, many of them featuring him playing a character that slays vampires.
Charley Brewster is a big fan, and so when he's threatened by Jerry Dandrige, Charley decides to seek out Peter's help.
The first time they meet, Peter tells Charley that he has just been fired from his job.
PETER: I have just been fired because nobody wants to see vampire killers anymore, or vampires either. Apparently, all they want to see are demented madmen running around in ski-masks, hacking up young virgins.
He adds that nobody believes in vampires anymore, to which Charley responds:
CHARLEY: I believe in vampires!
Peter smiles at him and says:
PETER: That's nice.
When Charley adds that he has a vampire living next door to him, Peter hightails it away from the boy, and when Charley reminds Peter that he himself said he believes in vampires, Peter says:
PETER: I lied!
One of my favorite lines comes when Amy and Evil Ed visit Peter to try to convince him to help Charley, and they begin to reminisce about Peter's movies, and Peter shows them a prop from one of his films and fondly thinks back:
PETER: It was one of my favorite roles.
Doesn't sound like much, but to watch McDowall play it is something special. His performance adds so much to FRIGHT NIGHT.
Of course, Peter eventually comes to believe that Charley is telling the truth and agrees to help him, even though he's terrified throughout.
When Peter finally confronts Jerry, he holds out a crucifix and says dramatically:
PETER: Back, spawn of Satan!
Jerry bursts out laughing.
JERRY: Really?
He grabs the cross and throws it aside.
JERRY: You have to have faith for this to work on me!
Charley (William Ragsdale) and Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) prepare to battle vampires in FRIGHT NIGHT (1985).
Later, Peter is attacked by Evil Ed:
PETER: Mrs. Brewster. My God, the phone lines have been cut.
(The bed sheets move, and Peter sees that it's not Mrs. Brewster in her bed, but Evil Ed.)
EVIL ED: I know. I did it!
PETER: Where is Charley's mother?
EVIL ED: Oh, well, she's working nights. But she left a note. (Reads) Mmmmmm mmm! His dinner… is in the oven!
And we finish with Jerry's line as he meets Amy for the first time and presents himself dramatically, even kissing her on the hand. He then laughs and says:
JERRY: Isn't that what vampires are supposed to do?
FRIGHT NIGHT remains playful throughout, even when being scary. It's one of the best vampire movies around, definitely worth checking out.
Hope you enjoyed this look at memorable quotes from FRIGHT NIGHT, and join me again next time when we'll look at cool quotes from another classic movie.
Comedies horror movies Michael Arruda movie reviews Roddy McDowall movies Uncategorized vampire movies 1980s horror movies Chris Sarandon comedic horror FRIGHT NIGHT 1985) horror comedies Memorable Movie Quotes Roddy McDowall vampire movies William Ragsdale


Tyshawn Taylor just wanted to play for the coach who recruited him at the college he signed with.
The high school basketball star from St. Anthony High School in Jersey City (N.J.) originally signed with Marquette University in October after being recruited for months by Golden Eagles' coach Tom Crean. However, Crean left Marquette on April 1 for a head coaching position at Indiana vacated by Kelvin Sampson.
Shortly after, reports suggested Taylor was planning on asking for a release from his letter of intent as a result of Crean's departure.
Taylor met April 11 with new head coach Brent "Buzz" Williams – a Marquette assistant who was part of Taylor's recruitment and was promoted to the head coaching position. After Marquette received the release request on April 17, it officially released Taylor from his letter-of-intent on the same day. However, some people still were not happy. At the time, legendary St. Anthony coach Bob Hurley said to Adam Zagoria of The Herald News (N.J.): "It's unacceptable but it's one of the things wrong with college basketball, that they would hold a kid for this long when there's such uncertainty." Taylor eventually signed with Kansas University.
Although the issue was resolved in a timely manner, the aforementioned scenario is a growing problem in college basketball. In short, the Tyshawn Taylor saga is not unusual and happens at various colleges around the country every spring.
Unfortunately, since the player has already signed a letter of intent, it is not guaranteed that the university will allow them to immediately leave the school and sign somewhere else. If the school does not let them leave, the player will have to sit out a year if he wants to transfer.
It does not make sense for universities to force student-athletes to stay in a situation that they did not necessarily agree to. They signed with a specific coach. Yes, the legacy of the basketball program or the location of the school may have played a part, but the relationship between a recruit and a coach is more often than not the deciding factor when a player chooses his destination.
There seems to be a growing consensus among most people around high school and college basketball that there needs to a rule change when it comes to players who sign with schools that eventually lose their coaches. It simply makes sense. Why should a high school recruit be forced to stay in a situation that he did not agree to and is not likely to be happy in?
Fran Fraschilla, a former coach at Manhattan College and St. John's University and now a college basketball analyst for ESPN, said he thinks players should have time to reconsider their commitment to a school in case the coach leaves or is fired.
Fraschilla thinks the period of time should be three weeks, which is ample time for a recruit to look at other schools and see if he wants to stick with his original college choice.
There is certainly another side to the issue. Many people believe a player should not base his college decision simply on his relationship with the current coach, and he should factor in a coach's job security when it comes to make a final choice. Coaches across the country are always either in danger of losing their jobs because of constant disappointment, or are consistently getting looked at for better jobs because they have been successful enough for a certain period of time. It is a tough balance for a prospective recruit to keep in mind, but it is also one that needs to be thought about when deciding on which school to attend.
As a result, there is an argument that players need to look at other aspects of the college outside of strictly the head coach when choosing their college.
Although Zagoria feels there should definitely be a rule allowing players to reconsider their options once a coach leaves, he sees the other side of the argument.
There is at least one person who feels that the issue is becoming less of a problem lately because administrators are becoming more understanding about the situation. Carmen Maciariello, vice president of the Albany City Rocks, an Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) program that has sent 67 players to Division-I schools in the past decade, said more and more players are being allowed to leave in case a coach departs.
Despite the clear need for a rule change in general, there certainly should be limits to how far the rule should extend. If it goes too far, too many players will feel they have the right to leave. For example, many high school players are recruited most heavily by assistant coaches, and it is not a stretch to say that some players choose a school based on the relationship they developed with that assistant coach. However, if schools start allowing recruits to leave because an assistant coach moved on to another job, that could open a Pandora's box of problems, as too many student-athletes will think they have a legit reason to leave without being penalized.
Furthermore, the hypothetical rule likely shouldn't apply to transfers, either. Currently, the rule in college basketball is that a player who wants to leave a program and transfer needs to sit out a year before becoming eligible to play again. It prevents players from going to four different schools in four different years, or leaving a college whenever they want. The transfer rule makes sense, and should stay the way it is.
There might be one way to avoid the problematic situation altogether. Indiana University made a somewhat controversial hire when it chose Kelvin Sampson as its head coach. Sampson had problems with the NCAA when he was at the University of Oklahoma, and continued to have the same problems when he arrived in Bloomington in 2006. The NCAA began an investigation in October 2007 regarding impermissible phone calls Sampson supposedly made. Unfortunately for the Hoosiers, that was right around the time that the early signing period for high school recruits began.
In order for recruits to stick with Indiana and not get scared away at the possibility of NCAA punishment or the loss of Sampson, the university gave each player an opt-out clause. It stated that, if Sampson left or the school received a postseason tournament ban before the recruit arrived on campus in the fall of 2008, the player would be freed from his commitment. At the time, the recruits – Terrell Holloway and Devin Ebanks – never thought they would have to use it, but lo and behold, Sampson was out before March began after the NCAA found Indiana had committed five major violations during Sampson's tenure. Holloway has since signed with Xavier, while Ebanks is still considering his options.
Zagoria said this concept could really help the whole recruiting process if it becomes more popular. "If all kids could get that, it would set a real precedent," he said.
If a rule change was in fact enacted which allowed players to reconsider their options in case the coach they signed with either left for another job or was fired, there are two domino effects that it could have on college basketball. One, coaches might receive more job security due to the fact that administrators and athletic directors wouldn't want to risk losing an entire recruiting class by getting rid of a coach. Fraschilla discussed how some athletic directors would rather fire a coach before a highly-touted recruiting class arrives so that the new coach would have a nice base on which to build his version of the program. If this rule were put into place, the administrators would have to rethink their approach.
Secondly, this would directly affect one of the rising trends in the recruiting game: players signing with schools later and later in the process. It used to be that players would sign in November during the early signing period and there would be nothing but scraps and the occasional star player available come the spring, or late, signing period. However, a growing number of players are now waiting to sign with schools until after their high school season ends, which is normally in March. For example, three of this season's top-13 recruits (Tyreke Evans, Scotty Hopson, Ater Majok) according to Rivals.com waited to sign until April, while another (Ebanks) signed in May.
Fraschilla mentioned how the aforementioned Bob Hurley is a major proponent of signing in the spring, mainly because of the chance a coach might leave after one of his players has signed with that school.
It boils down to the fact that the majority of players choose their destination as a result of how they got along with the head coach, a fact solidified by discussions with multiple people involved in high school and college basketball.
There should undoubtedly be a rule enacted which would allow recruits a certain period of time to reconsider their options should the coach they signed with get fired or move up in the coaching ranks to another job. A player who signs with a school is not just signing with the school; he's signing with a coach and that coach's vision of building a program. The coach may have made a player a relative promise about how much playing time he should expect to receive, or what plans he has for the player. Once that coach leaves, though, all of that is out the window. If the player meets with the new coach and finds that he does not have the same vision as the former coach, the player should not be forced to stay in that situation. It is not the situation he signed on with, and he therefore should be able to change his mind and find a place where he will be a better fit and be happier.
Luckily for Tyshawn Taylor, he was able to eventually get out of his letter-of-intent and move on to another school where he actually wanted to be. However, all student-athletes aren't so lucky, and that is both wrong and unfair.
Just one of the many problems with the college recruiting process. Great article!
A huge problem, but it underscores why recruits need to look past the coach and examine the total university.
Would a business student leave a school if the dean of his school was fired?
I realize its not the exactly the same scenario (you don't spend anywhere near the same amount of time with a prof. as a coach), but it is important to view the situation like a regular student.
If the relationship between the coach and recruit is the critical factor, what about the school with a new head coach? What if the old head coach recruited players the new coach doesn't believe will fit his style of play? If the recruit can opt out when the head coach leaves, should the school be allowed to opt out of the scholarship offer at the whim of the new coach?
Great article. It seems like the players are always getting screwed in college hoops. The NBA age limit is another example - the league forces the best players to go to school for the year so that their marketability increases. Would anyone care about the Oden/Durant or Beasley/Rose debates if they were coming out of high school?
Most of the time, when a coach leaves the recruits are released from their letter of intent, which is a good thing. And I agree with the idea that they should be given a grace period (I think you said three weeks) to be able to find another place to go.
At Jon: if the school opts out of the scholarship, isn't that essentially the same thing as releasing a player from his LOI?


text:
Q: What's causing the dark borders around letters using OpenGL? Following on from this question.
When I draw the letters I'm getting a dark border around some areas. Below is an example zoomed 4x. The letter on the left is drawn with OpenGL. The letter on the right is my bitmap font atlas in Photoshop colour adjusted to match what is being drawn by my game. As you can see, the 's' on the left has noticeable dark borders in some areas.

I've played with various blending options but can't work out what's causing it. If someone could tell me what the cause is and how to fix it that's be appreciated.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Professional Excellence in Autism for Employment & Enterprise.
Autism is a completely different way of experiencing the world. And it's here to stay.
How are you and your workplace adapting?
Why do so many autistic people struggle to access, and remain in meaningful employment and what can we do, as individuals and organisations, to change this?
Read on to learn from two autistic professionals in Sheffield, UK.
In our accessible and adaptable workshops, participants gain valuable first-hand insight into the employment experiences of two autistic 'experts by experience', Anna Nibbs and Jonathan Drury. We are both autistic and have an extensive range of practical skills, expertise and background knowledge and experience in training delivery and consultancy.
Our sessions provide the opportunity for delegates to self-reflect on their own perceptions of the world, and on how these might influence their particular approaches to working with and supporting autistic people.
Throughout the workshop we model a responsive person-centred approach, taking into close consideration the needs and comfort of our audience, both collectively and as individuals.
You will develop an understanding of autism, and the many ways it affects people. Learn about the challenges faced by autistic people in entering into and staying in employment. Hear about other autistic people struggling to find their vocation. Gain direct insight into the first-hand employment experiences of two autistic training facilitators. Consider ways in which a person-centred approach can be used to better support autistic people into meaningful employment and excel in their role.
*Aims and outcomes. *What is autism, and what does it mean to be autistic? *An *overview of autism and employment. *Employer barriers. *Comfort/discomfort, self-awareness and social roles. *Our personal experiences. *Person-centred support approaches. *Advantages of workplace autism and productivity. *Personal reflection, questions and takeaway thoughts.
Our training workshops deliberately set out to disrupt standard modes of thinking. They provide the spark for conversations that will continue to build momentum, long after you have left the training room.
Did you know that autistic people might have extra-high levels of focus, creative talent and innovation? We call this the Autism Edge. By making a few small attitudinal shifts and practical adjustments, you can make a difference, improve your company, and contribute to a happier workplace and wider world.
partnership working with community organisations and individuals.
Anna has professional interests in enterprise and entrepreneurship education, employability and skills development, interdisciplinary learning, autism and neurodiversity, autism and gender, educational equity, diversity and accessibility, and inclusive workspaces.
Dialogue facilitation for organisations and communities (autism community, autistic people, health care, therapists, practitioners, families, researchers).
devising and managing EU funded, private education programmes with home-schooled children and refugees, self-discovery training, writing, storytelling and arts workshops.
Jonathan's main interests include relationship centred care, enterprise, autism, dialogue, organisational change, neurodiversity, quantum science, anthropology and critical arts in health.
Nibbs and Drury are based in Sheffield, UK and can work anywhere, from educational settings to businesses and organisations, from small enterprises to corporations, third sector and beyond. We can also provide a range of suitable training rooms in Sheffield centre.
Bespoke Staff & Researcher Training.
Dialogue Facilitation - Easy to learn group methodology to get everyone really communicating, especially at times of change. From 8 to 30 participants per session.
Consultations - Bespoke & in-house, fresh views to improve your knowledge and output.
Conference Speaking - Inspirational and motivational speeches for any audience.
Individual consultancy and coaching - please enquire.
Anna Nibbs & Jonathan Drury.
Created with images by Nycholas Souza - "untitled image" • Timothy Eberly - "Korean Pop" • Sweet Ice Cream Photography - "Foggy day." • pixel2013 - "apple red red apple" • rawpixel - "Checking workplace progress" • Alex Litvin - "Projector rays" • pixel2013 - "girl woman blonde" • Andrew Neel - "FOLLOW YOUR PASSION" • rawpixel - "untitled image" • rawpixel - "untitled image" • Palash Jain - "Doctor Uncle" • geralt - "system web network" • pixel2013 - "girl balloon composing"


text:
<?php

namespace Lexik\Bundle\MailerBundle\Form\Type;

use Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType;
use Symfony\Component\Form\Extension\Core\Type\TextareaType;
use Symfony\Component\Form\Extension\Core\Type\TextType;
use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilderInterface;
use Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolver;

/**
 * @author Laurent Heurtault <l.heurtault@lexik.fr>
 */
class LayoutType extends AbstractType
{
    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function buildForm(FormBuilderInterface $builder, array $options)
    {
        $builder
            ->add('reference', TextType::class, array(
                'attr' => [
                    'read_only' => $options['edit'],
                ],
                'property_path' => 'entity.reference',
                'label'         => 'lexik_mailer.layout.reference',
            ))
            ->add('description', TextareaType::class, array(
                'property_path' => 'entity.description',
                'required'      => false,
                'label'         => 'lexik_mailer.layout.description',
            ))
            ->add('defaultLocale', TextType::class, array(
                'property_path' => 'entity.defaultLocale',
                'required'      => false,
                'label'         => 'lexik_mailer.layout.default_locale'
            ))
            ->add('translation', LayoutTranslationType::class, array(
                'data'          => $options['data_translation'],
                'with_language' => $options['edit'],
                'label'         => 'lexik_mailer.layout.translation',
            ))
        ;
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function configureOptions(OptionsResolver $resolver)
    {
        $resolver->setDefaults(array(
            'data_class'          => 'Lexik\Bundle\MailerBundle\Form\Model\EntityTranslationModel',
            'data_translation'    => null,
            'edit'                => false,
            'preferred_languages' => array(),
            'translation_domain'  => 'LexikMailerBundle',
        ));
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function getBlockPrefix()
    {
        return 'mailer_layout';
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Former England cricket captain Bob Willis dies
AFP, Cricket, Sports
LONDON: Former England captain and fearsome pace bowler Bob Willis has died aged 70, his family announced on Wednesday.
Willis, who captained his country between 1982 and 1984, played in 90 Test matches with his most memorable performance taking eight for 43 in the Australian second innings of the third Ashes Test in 1981.
That series was known as Botham s Ashes due to the remarkable performances of England all-rounder Ian Botham.
Botham would later describe his team-mate as a "tremendous trier, a great team man and an inspiration — the only world-class fast bowler in my time as an England player."
Willis finished his Test career with 325 wickets, which puts him fourth on the all-time list of England wicket-takers behind James Anderson, Botham and Stuart Broad.
"We are heartbroken to lose our beloved Bob, who was an incredible husband, father, brother and grandfather," read the Willis family statement.
"He made a huge impact on everybody he knew and we will miss him terribly."
The former international cricketer is survived by his wife Lauren, daughter Katie, brother David and sister Ann.
Bob Willis cricket England captain England cricket	2019-12-05
Tags Bob Willis cricket England captain England cricket
Previous Javeria seeks consistent flow of runs in England ODIs
Next Chile eyes state-backed lithium push in far-flung salt flats

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
mh.t047 - Hanging Freud - Nowhere
Cette création est mise à disposition sous un contrat Creative Commons
Myhand.thanx records were sleeping peacefully when they were suddenly awoken by an unknown buzzing noise... Unknown but also very familiar... "I know" opens Hanging Freud new album and the floor under your feet crumbles down... and you fall down, and down, and the album is like an endless jump into a comfortable darkness... Very oxymoronic, isn't it? It's what I said to Paula and Jonathan after listening to "Nowhere" it's dark and moving at the same time. Unknown and familiar. Scary and comforting. Electronic and organic.
I can't help thinking of some songs by My Bloody Valentine or Masfield.tya, but also of cold wave (yeah, the coldest one...), drone music, krautrock, lyricism...
This is why I love these two people and will always support their art of mixing, melting and transcending what's around and inside them.
Don't be afraid to dive into "Nowhere"... it will lead you where you need to be.
Libellés : Hanging Freud


text:
Q: Counting occurrences across many rasters using ArcGIS Desktop? I am interested in drought occurrences in the US, especially how often droughts of a particular severity occur in particular regions.  I've got nice vector maps from http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu showing drought severity for each year (scale of 0 - 4, with 0 = minor drought and 4 = extreme drought) for 2006 - 2017. I've converted the vector maps to rasters, all with the same extent and cell size.
Using ArcMap 10.5 (and prob Spatial Analyst), I want to count how many times a drought index of each level has occurred in a given region (i.e. raster cell) over the 10 year period.  I'm imagining inputting the 10 yearly maps and ending up with 5 output rasters, each holding the count of drought level for each cell. So far I haven't found a way to count occurrences across multiple rasters.  I don't want sum or weighted average, I want counts.  Any suggestions?

A: Table below is an output of Combine tool using 6 input rasters (tool can take upto 20). I added column ZEROS to it and populated using:
[ !G01!, !G02!, !G03!, !G04!, !G05!, !G06!].count(0)

The simplest way to to create raster from that column is Lookup tool.

BTW same result can be achieved by using Union tool on original polygons, if you have advanced license that can take more than 2 inputs.

A: Ultimately I found the simplest approach was using the shapefiles and Union.  But I also found a direct way to count occurrences across multiple rasters using the "Equal to Frequency" tool (http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-analyst-toolbox/equal-to-frequency.htm)
My workflow ended up as this:

*

*Convert all shapefiles to rasters, making sure all have exact same extent and cell size (and changed the drought index scale from 0-4 to 1-5)

*Create "value rasters" with same extent and cell size as above, one value raster for each drought index level

*In all rasters, convert NoData cells to zero values using Reclassify

*Run "Equal to Frequency" tool once for each drought index level