Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristina (502 KP) rated Keep Me Still (Keep Me Still, #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Holy freaking cow. This book sat on my Kindle app for the longest time. Many nights I scanned over it, couldn’t remember if I read it or not, so just avoided it all together. Lately, the eBooks I have downloaded are dwindling, so I got desperate and clicked on practically every book I owned and either hadn’t read or just couldn’t remember reading. I skimmed through a few and just wasn’t feeling it – you ever get that way, start reading the first couple of chapters in several books and just know it’s not what you’re in the mood for? Finally, I clicked on Keep Me Still, though I still couldn’t recall whether or not I had read it. The Kindle version I read had all 3 parts of Keep Me Still. Only after a couple of pages in Let You Leave (part 1), I immediately knew I hadn’t read it and that it was what I was looking for.
From the beginning, I was intrigued with Layla. At first, it sounded as if she had come back from dealing with depression or something of the sort, so I was drawn to figuring out why she felt the way she did and how she overcame it. Then I met Landen; reading his mother beg him to not get into any fights piqued my interest. Who doesn’t love a bad boy, eh? During the first few chapters, if I’m being honest, I was only interested in finding out why the school treated Layla like a pariah. Being a victim of bullying, there was an instant connection with her on that level and I was curious to figure out what could have happened to earn her the nickname “Freaky Flaherty”. Somehow, without my knowing it, that mystery fell to the wayside as I watched Layla’s guard slowly crumble enough to allow Landen in. I’m a sucker for a good romance, it’s pretty much the only thing I read, so their spark inflamed the fire of curiosity within me. I like to guess at what the catalyst will be when it comes to these kinds of stories. There’s always one and I tried my best to figure out what would tear them apart. Watching them come together, watching Layla allow Landen to tear down her walls and show her love, was amazing. Of course, then my heart got crushed when that catalyst occurred.
Immediately, I read the second part, ‘Keep Me Still’, almost with desperation. I needed them to get back together, I needed them to reconcile and let their feelings for each other obliterate all the insecurities and fears they were holding onto. To my delight, there wasn’t much of a fight when they finally came back together, but again, I was waiting for the catalyst – which was a lot more obvious this time around. The end of that section made me ecstatic, but the novella came after and I couldn’t ignore it.
The novella, Hold Us Close, slayed me. Practically from the second or third page, it took my heart and tore it into little tiny pieces, then proceeded to stomp all over it with every heart breaking moment, back to back to back. Many times I had to hold my breath, several moments left me staring at the screen in horrified shock, more often than not, I was shaking my head and mentally berating both Landen and Layla (though Landen got the brunt of my scolding). The ending – the final ending – scared the living daylights out of me. I didn’t know how it would turn out; it was shaping up to be a story without an HEA and I knew I wouldn’t be able to handle it. Before the last page of their story, before reading Landen’s letter, the ending left me in tears. I don’t remember when I downloaded this eBook, but I do know I’m beyond grateful for all those sites that tell you when Amazon is giving them away for free – that’s the only way I could have owned Keep Me Still, because I would remember if I spent money on it, but I’m certainly appreciative to whichever e-mail I received with this title listed for free.
*PS: I really love Corin. She's amazing. Is there a novella with a little more of her and Skylar's story??
From the beginning, I was intrigued with Layla. At first, it sounded as if she had come back from dealing with depression or something of the sort, so I was drawn to figuring out why she felt the way she did and how she overcame it. Then I met Landen; reading his mother beg him to not get into any fights piqued my interest. Who doesn’t love a bad boy, eh? During the first few chapters, if I’m being honest, I was only interested in finding out why the school treated Layla like a pariah. Being a victim of bullying, there was an instant connection with her on that level and I was curious to figure out what could have happened to earn her the nickname “Freaky Flaherty”. Somehow, without my knowing it, that mystery fell to the wayside as I watched Layla’s guard slowly crumble enough to allow Landen in. I’m a sucker for a good romance, it’s pretty much the only thing I read, so their spark inflamed the fire of curiosity within me. I like to guess at what the catalyst will be when it comes to these kinds of stories. There’s always one and I tried my best to figure out what would tear them apart. Watching them come together, watching Layla allow Landen to tear down her walls and show her love, was amazing. Of course, then my heart got crushed when that catalyst occurred.
Immediately, I read the second part, ‘Keep Me Still’, almost with desperation. I needed them to get back together, I needed them to reconcile and let their feelings for each other obliterate all the insecurities and fears they were holding onto. To my delight, there wasn’t much of a fight when they finally came back together, but again, I was waiting for the catalyst – which was a lot more obvious this time around. The end of that section made me ecstatic, but the novella came after and I couldn’t ignore it.
The novella, Hold Us Close, slayed me. Practically from the second or third page, it took my heart and tore it into little tiny pieces, then proceeded to stomp all over it with every heart breaking moment, back to back to back. Many times I had to hold my breath, several moments left me staring at the screen in horrified shock, more often than not, I was shaking my head and mentally berating both Landen and Layla (though Landen got the brunt of my scolding). The ending – the final ending – scared the living daylights out of me. I didn’t know how it would turn out; it was shaping up to be a story without an HEA and I knew I wouldn’t be able to handle it. Before the last page of their story, before reading Landen’s letter, the ending left me in tears. I don’t remember when I downloaded this eBook, but I do know I’m beyond grateful for all those sites that tell you when Amazon is giving them away for free – that’s the only way I could have owned Keep Me Still, because I would remember if I spent money on it, but I’m certainly appreciative to whichever e-mail I received with this title listed for free.
*PS: I really love Corin. She's amazing. Is there a novella with a little more of her and Skylar's story??
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Month Calendar 2
Productivity and Utilities
App
Month Calendar is an amazing and simple way to manage your calendar. You get a brilliant overview at...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Sold to the Werewolf Prince in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book is very short and has a good thought behind it. Since the world Hannah is now trying to integrate into is all about being kind and polite at all costs, its easy to see why she would have troubles with some of it. If offending someone meant execution, any human would have a problem living there without issue. I think that is the biggest idea I found to be enjoyable in the book. I love the idea of aliens and space travel, but the view point on having to keep your tongue tied to always be able to be kind to someone is what pique my interest. However, its not just your voice and words, its in your actions too. That whole world made sure everyone at all times are kept in a pleasured and blissful state.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.