Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Verdict: Pointless Sequel
Story: S. Darko starts seven years after the events of Donnie Darko, Samantha (Chase) his little sister has grown up to become a lost soul in the world, drifting with Corey (Evigan), still struggling with the grief of what happened to her brother’s unsolved death. The two women find themselves in a small country town while their car is getting fix.
As the two spend the time in the town, they learn about the secrets, including the estranged war veteran known as Iraq Jack (Lafferty) who is considered a danger in the local area, though he starts getting visits from Samantha talking about the end, will the rest of the town’s secrets get revealed.
Thoughts on S. Darko
Characters – Samantha is the younger sister of Donnie Darko, she has seen her family destroyed by what happened to him, seeing her left alone in the world, drifting with her friend, she has always been spaced out, but now she starts to experience the same visions that Donnie once did, sleepwalking and visiting people with warnings of an impending doom coming to this town. This is a strange twist for the character that starts of shier and more innocent, but soon is trying to find the truth about her own visions. Corey is the confident of the two friends, she likes to party and flirt, which has seen her getting tired of Samantha’s awkwardness. Iraq Jack is a war veteran that has been branded a creep in the town, the police are just waiting to blame him for any crime to get rid of him, but he has a story to tell, one that Samantha can connect too. Randy is the local bad boy that befriends the two girls, he has lost his brother and this has turned him to drink for comfort, while he battles his own demons once the girls arrive in the town.
Performances – Daveigh Chase is the only actors to return to the franchise, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, she does look like the innocent lost soul she is meant to be playing. Briana Evigan as the confident flirty best friend is strong through the film, while the rest of the cast really do what they can with the material, this isn’t one that the actors should be criticised for.
Story – The story here follows the sister of Donnie Darko as she discovers that she has her own journey with the time travelling universe saving rabbit figure that is desperately trying to put the warning out there to this small town. Well that is about as much as I could figure out, much like Donnie Darko, we do get a town filled with secrets that the time travelling is meant to expose or save, but we just try to get an overly diluted version of the genius of the original story. The idea that somebody in this town has their own bunny mask confuses more than anything and by the end you will be left wondering what the point in the story here was, the sequel ideas never seem to understand the uniqueness of the original, losing the direction it is trying to show.
Mystery/Sci-Fi – The mystery in this film comes what is going on, though it doesn’t even feel solved by the conclusion of the film, while the sci-fi side of the film follows the idea of time travel.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which does have a few secrets that people want to keep secret, but are about to be exposed.
Special Effects – The effects are fine they have the keep the goo water trail that we had in the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Umm, pass.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – So many plot holes.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that just seems to become pointless, he doesn’t dig any deeper and only confuses the timeline with plot holes everywhere.
Overall: Hopeless Sequel.
Story: S. Darko starts seven years after the events of Donnie Darko, Samantha (Chase) his little sister has grown up to become a lost soul in the world, drifting with Corey (Evigan), still struggling with the grief of what happened to her brother’s unsolved death. The two women find themselves in a small country town while their car is getting fix.
As the two spend the time in the town, they learn about the secrets, including the estranged war veteran known as Iraq Jack (Lafferty) who is considered a danger in the local area, though he starts getting visits from Samantha talking about the end, will the rest of the town’s secrets get revealed.
Thoughts on S. Darko
Characters – Samantha is the younger sister of Donnie Darko, she has seen her family destroyed by what happened to him, seeing her left alone in the world, drifting with her friend, she has always been spaced out, but now she starts to experience the same visions that Donnie once did, sleepwalking and visiting people with warnings of an impending doom coming to this town. This is a strange twist for the character that starts of shier and more innocent, but soon is trying to find the truth about her own visions. Corey is the confident of the two friends, she likes to party and flirt, which has seen her getting tired of Samantha’s awkwardness. Iraq Jack is a war veteran that has been branded a creep in the town, the police are just waiting to blame him for any crime to get rid of him, but he has a story to tell, one that Samantha can connect too. Randy is the local bad boy that befriends the two girls, he has lost his brother and this has turned him to drink for comfort, while he battles his own demons once the girls arrive in the town.
Performances – Daveigh Chase is the only actors to return to the franchise, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, she does look like the innocent lost soul she is meant to be playing. Briana Evigan as the confident flirty best friend is strong through the film, while the rest of the cast really do what they can with the material, this isn’t one that the actors should be criticised for.
Story – The story here follows the sister of Donnie Darko as she discovers that she has her own journey with the time travelling universe saving rabbit figure that is desperately trying to put the warning out there to this small town. Well that is about as much as I could figure out, much like Donnie Darko, we do get a town filled with secrets that the time travelling is meant to expose or save, but we just try to get an overly diluted version of the genius of the original story. The idea that somebody in this town has their own bunny mask confuses more than anything and by the end you will be left wondering what the point in the story here was, the sequel ideas never seem to understand the uniqueness of the original, losing the direction it is trying to show.
Mystery/Sci-Fi – The mystery in this film comes what is going on, though it doesn’t even feel solved by the conclusion of the film, while the sci-fi side of the film follows the idea of time travel.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which does have a few secrets that people want to keep secret, but are about to be exposed.
Special Effects – The effects are fine they have the keep the goo water trail that we had in the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Umm, pass.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – So many plot holes.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that just seems to become pointless, he doesn’t dig any deeper and only confuses the timeline with plot holes everywhere.
Overall: Hopeless Sequel.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated No Time To Die by Billie Eilish in Music
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Congratulations to The Wasteland’s favourite new artist for sweeping 5 awards at yesterday’s Grammy’s. I hate to say I told you so, but I kinda did, a long way out. It just makes sense to me, that if you have a musical ear, this is the best pop music that has been made for 20 years.
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Neighbor in Books
Apr 13, 2021
I can not get enough of London Clarke's books. I have not read a bad one yet, so when I saw that she had released a new book entitled The Neighbor, I knew I had to read it. To say I was blown away is an understatement. The Neighbor has now become my favorite London Clarke book so far.
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beats (2019) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
When this came up as an Unlimited Screening I shrugged my shoulders and booked my ticket. I didn't know anything about it and the very brief synopsis I read didn't really change that.
Johnno and Spanner are life long friends. Johnno is sensible and has a relatively stable family life while Spanner is suffering from living in his brother's criminal shadow.
When Spanner finds out that Johnno's mum is moving them up in the world to a new house with her policeman boyfriend he's devastated and steals money from his brother to fuel one last great night out for them both.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me work out why this was filmed in black and white, from personal recollections 1994 was pretty colourful, even in Scotland. The only reason I can conclude, as a viewer, is so that they could add a tie-dye electric nightmare at the rave to illustrate the drug-fuelled euphoria in a rather predictable visual way. Neither particularly added anything to the proceedings.
The highlight when it came to the acting in Beats was Lorn Macdonald as Spanner. The different sides of his character were shown so well. We get a peek at the person Johnno knows him to be and not the person he's perceived to be. Macdonald managed to bring a vulnerability to Spanner and reminded us that friends are the family you choose.
Johnno as a character confused me a bit, he was all over the place. Quiet and shy for the most part with the odd outburst that didn't feel like they fit the situation. Cristian Ortega wasn't bad in this part but the muddled character traits throughout left me cold to Johnno.
Beats obviously contains a lot of music and I was pleased that it wasn't always played a full volume. We open with the pair dancing to music and you expect it to be excessively loud. They kept it at a relatively low level but managed to give you the impression it was louder by the way everyone reacted to it. I can't work out whether that was a good or a bad way to start because I keep pondering on that point, being loud would have been accurate but I probably would have been grumbling about that fact right now.
The rave itself felt very accurate but it was tremendously difficult to watch. It really gave you the impression that you were in it, the only trouble with that is that when you are actually in it you're not trying to watch what's happening. Perhaps we could have cranked it up and had audience participation.
Beats is a story of friendship that happens to coincide with a time of change for the music scene in Scotland. There are touching moments in it, mainly around Spanner, but the rest of the film felt like it was trying to be too artistic. There's probably a very niche audience of music lovers out there for this but there were just too many moments that made me frown to give this a higher rating.
On the topic of ratings, as a final point... Beats was rated 18 and I would assume that this was for the drug use and domestic violence. This is me being numb to all things offensive I guess but it really didn't feel like it needed an 18.
What you should do
If you were/are partial to a rave then give this a go, but it's not something I'd generally recommend.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the energy to party like that... what a distant memory.
Johnno and Spanner are life long friends. Johnno is sensible and has a relatively stable family life while Spanner is suffering from living in his brother's criminal shadow.
When Spanner finds out that Johnno's mum is moving them up in the world to a new house with her policeman boyfriend he's devastated and steals money from his brother to fuel one last great night out for them both.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me work out why this was filmed in black and white, from personal recollections 1994 was pretty colourful, even in Scotland. The only reason I can conclude, as a viewer, is so that they could add a tie-dye electric nightmare at the rave to illustrate the drug-fuelled euphoria in a rather predictable visual way. Neither particularly added anything to the proceedings.
The highlight when it came to the acting in Beats was Lorn Macdonald as Spanner. The different sides of his character were shown so well. We get a peek at the person Johnno knows him to be and not the person he's perceived to be. Macdonald managed to bring a vulnerability to Spanner and reminded us that friends are the family you choose.
Johnno as a character confused me a bit, he was all over the place. Quiet and shy for the most part with the odd outburst that didn't feel like they fit the situation. Cristian Ortega wasn't bad in this part but the muddled character traits throughout left me cold to Johnno.
Beats obviously contains a lot of music and I was pleased that it wasn't always played a full volume. We open with the pair dancing to music and you expect it to be excessively loud. They kept it at a relatively low level but managed to give you the impression it was louder by the way everyone reacted to it. I can't work out whether that was a good or a bad way to start because I keep pondering on that point, being loud would have been accurate but I probably would have been grumbling about that fact right now.
The rave itself felt very accurate but it was tremendously difficult to watch. It really gave you the impression that you were in it, the only trouble with that is that when you are actually in it you're not trying to watch what's happening. Perhaps we could have cranked it up and had audience participation.
Beats is a story of friendship that happens to coincide with a time of change for the music scene in Scotland. There are touching moments in it, mainly around Spanner, but the rest of the film felt like it was trying to be too artistic. There's probably a very niche audience of music lovers out there for this but there were just too many moments that made me frown to give this a higher rating.
On the topic of ratings, as a final point... Beats was rated 18 and I would assume that this was for the drug use and domestic violence. This is me being numb to all things offensive I guess but it really didn't feel like it needed an 18.
What you should do
If you were/are partial to a rave then give this a go, but it's not something I'd generally recommend.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the energy to party like that... what a distant memory.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Water: Abyss (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I don't know how I've never seen Black Water, but I saw the trailer for Abyss and it caught my eye so I'll be going back to check the first one out as they're usually better.
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Transformers being made into a live action film sounds like every fan's dream come true on paper, but throw Michael Bay into the equation and you lose a good portion of that audience. Bay is a director who tends to rely solely on action sequences. He's known for creating superb and intense scenes in his films, but they always rely on heavy explosions or pure destruction. That's not to say that's a bad thing, but it's hard to name a memorable scene in a Michael Bay film that doesn't include those elements. Everything else in his films (the story, the dialogue, the initial scenes that bridge the gap between each action sequence, etc) all seem to be lacking that extra spark his action sequences have. So those doubts carried over to Transformers and Bay's version seems to be more enjoyable for people who aren't rabid fans of the franchise.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.