Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy & Punch (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
This had been low on my list of things to see at the film festival but several people recommended it to me so I decided to take a look.
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
Andy K (10823 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019 (Updated Oct 18, 2019)
Very disappointing
It seems 3 From Hell was doomed before it began for several reasons.
First, why did Zombie wait so long between sequels? The time between House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects was only 2 years. Zombie was a hot director at the time. Maybe he felt his career as a prominent horror director would continue to blossom after he was handed the reigns of rebooting the Halloween franchise.
Second, talk about painting yourself into a corner thematically having your three main characters go up against a police roadblock at the end of the last film getting sprayed with an onslaught of law enforcement ammunition. These are not immortal characters here, so explaining that circumstance would be difficult one indeed.
Third, and probably most importantly for fans, one of your leads has become deathly ill, lost a lot of weight, and probably cannot handle the strain of a large acting role at this time. Sid Haig dies only a few days after this film's release and his role was reduced to basically a cameo within the first few minutes of the movie disappointing fans of his unique personality as Captain Spaulding to minimal screen time. This eventuality made Rob Zombie have to do extensive rewrites to reinvent his third 3 From Hell baddie, and it was definitely a step down.
Explaining the plot of the film would almost mirror exactly that of the previous film. Somehow, the 3 survive their being riddled with 20 bullets each and get incarcerated for their convictions of the years of murder , torture and other bad deeds they have inflicted on their victims. Otis breaks free and escapes one day on his prison work detail and goes after the family and friends of the warden. A plan is put in place to execute the release of his beautiful, but deadly sister, Baby, by smuggling her out in a prison guard uniform.
After she returns to the warden's home full of kidnap victims (carbon copy of the motel scenes from Rejects) the two baddies along with their badass stepbrother decide to make their way to Mexico to evade capture and indulge in the good life of excess.
After they arrive, they have fun with the locals while secretly are betrayed to a band of south of the border hooligans looking to get revenge themselves on the 3 who had murdered a relative (again the same as the sheriff in Rejects).
I really couldn't believe the plot points being so very similar to Rejects. Zombie clearly ran out of good ideas and felt like the audience would just be happy to see more random bloody violence perpetrated by characters they knew and loved. Not true for me as I became bored quite quickly hoping for something interesting to happen which never really did.
The look of the film was also quite different. It seems Zombie's popularity is not what it once was and his budget this time must have been much smaller. The cinematography was weak and not very creative and the visual effects were just north of Sharknado level I thought with poor quality with the bullet wounds and stabbing injuring looking amateur.
Overall, very disappointed for a long wait with a poor 3rd film payoff. This is one of those times they should've quit with two movies and quit while they were ahead.
First, why did Zombie wait so long between sequels? The time between House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects was only 2 years. Zombie was a hot director at the time. Maybe he felt his career as a prominent horror director would continue to blossom after he was handed the reigns of rebooting the Halloween franchise.
Second, talk about painting yourself into a corner thematically having your three main characters go up against a police roadblock at the end of the last film getting sprayed with an onslaught of law enforcement ammunition. These are not immortal characters here, so explaining that circumstance would be difficult one indeed.
Third, and probably most importantly for fans, one of your leads has become deathly ill, lost a lot of weight, and probably cannot handle the strain of a large acting role at this time. Sid Haig dies only a few days after this film's release and his role was reduced to basically a cameo within the first few minutes of the movie disappointing fans of his unique personality as Captain Spaulding to minimal screen time. This eventuality made Rob Zombie have to do extensive rewrites to reinvent his third 3 From Hell baddie, and it was definitely a step down.
Explaining the plot of the film would almost mirror exactly that of the previous film. Somehow, the 3 survive their being riddled with 20 bullets each and get incarcerated for their convictions of the years of murder , torture and other bad deeds they have inflicted on their victims. Otis breaks free and escapes one day on his prison work detail and goes after the family and friends of the warden. A plan is put in place to execute the release of his beautiful, but deadly sister, Baby, by smuggling her out in a prison guard uniform.
After she returns to the warden's home full of kidnap victims (carbon copy of the motel scenes from Rejects) the two baddies along with their badass stepbrother decide to make their way to Mexico to evade capture and indulge in the good life of excess.
After they arrive, they have fun with the locals while secretly are betrayed to a band of south of the border hooligans looking to get revenge themselves on the 3 who had murdered a relative (again the same as the sheriff in Rejects).
I really couldn't believe the plot points being so very similar to Rejects. Zombie clearly ran out of good ideas and felt like the audience would just be happy to see more random bloody violence perpetrated by characters they knew and loved. Not true for me as I became bored quite quickly hoping for something interesting to happen which never really did.
The look of the film was also quite different. It seems Zombie's popularity is not what it once was and his budget this time must have been much smaller. The cinematography was weak and not very creative and the visual effects were just north of Sharknado level I thought with poor quality with the bullet wounds and stabbing injuring looking amateur.
Overall, very disappointed for a long wait with a poor 3rd film payoff. This is one of those times they should've quit with two movies and quit while they were ahead.
Darren (1599 KP) rated See You Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Verdict: Messy Time Travel Film
Story: See You Yesterday starts as we meet the two teenagers Claudette ‘CJ’ Walker (Duncan-Smith) and Sebastian Thomas (Crichlow) who have been working on their science project to make time travel possible. After they prove they can go back just one day, CJ the brains behind the project, does something reckless, which changes the pass, while dealing with an ex-boyfriend.
The consequences of her actions create a domino effect which sees her brother Calvin (Astro) killed in a police shooting, wanting to make a different CJ works with Sebastian to try and create the ability to go further back, which only ends up creating more problems, the more she tries to fix.
Thoughts on See You Yesterday
Characters – Claudette ‘CJ’ Walker is the brains behind the time travel machine, she however has started to become difficult to be around, causing unnecessary trouble in an already combustible neighbourhood. When the pair get the machine to work, it is her mistake which causes the effects the pair must go through. She is always so desperate to fix the mistakes, she doesn’t even consider the consequences. Sebastian is the best friend that has always helped along the way, he is the one that will ask the questions about the consequences, seeing how reckless CJ has become. Calvin is the big brother of CJ’s, he will always make sure she is safe, whenever somebody in the neighbourhood causes her trouble.
Performances – While the two leading stars Eden Duncan-Smith and Dante Crichlow don’t do anything wrong through the film, they have annoying character traits to bring to life, which doesn’t help what they have to work with.
Story – The story here follows two high school friends that are trying to prove time travel is possible and soon learn the consequences of trying to change the past. This story does have an important reason for trying to create the time travel, we are placed into a Brooklyn neighbourhood that has been dealing with police shooting, overly aggressive gang mentality and will have signs of poverty. Outside of this side of the story, we are dealing with really bad time travel decisions, even though the characters seem clear of what not to do. We won’t go into the non-ending either, which leaves us with nothing after what has happened through the film, this does just feel like an unfinished script, that really wants deal with topical issues through the film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film does come from the panic involved once the first incident happens, it is more neighbourhood action, rather anything else, while the time travel might dive into basic science behind time travel, which does work well, it is the behaviour from people that believe they understand it that let everything down.
Settings – The film is set in Brooklyn which shows the environment the two friends are around, which brings the combustible elements.
Scene of the Movie – See You Yesterday.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of CJ’s decisions.
Final Thoughts – Messy time travel film, which does deal with big topical issues the best it can, sadly, get caught in the middle of both worlds.
Overall: Missed the point.
Story: See You Yesterday starts as we meet the two teenagers Claudette ‘CJ’ Walker (Duncan-Smith) and Sebastian Thomas (Crichlow) who have been working on their science project to make time travel possible. After they prove they can go back just one day, CJ the brains behind the project, does something reckless, which changes the pass, while dealing with an ex-boyfriend.
The consequences of her actions create a domino effect which sees her brother Calvin (Astro) killed in a police shooting, wanting to make a different CJ works with Sebastian to try and create the ability to go further back, which only ends up creating more problems, the more she tries to fix.
Thoughts on See You Yesterday
Characters – Claudette ‘CJ’ Walker is the brains behind the time travel machine, she however has started to become difficult to be around, causing unnecessary trouble in an already combustible neighbourhood. When the pair get the machine to work, it is her mistake which causes the effects the pair must go through. She is always so desperate to fix the mistakes, she doesn’t even consider the consequences. Sebastian is the best friend that has always helped along the way, he is the one that will ask the questions about the consequences, seeing how reckless CJ has become. Calvin is the big brother of CJ’s, he will always make sure she is safe, whenever somebody in the neighbourhood causes her trouble.
Performances – While the two leading stars Eden Duncan-Smith and Dante Crichlow don’t do anything wrong through the film, they have annoying character traits to bring to life, which doesn’t help what they have to work with.
Story – The story here follows two high school friends that are trying to prove time travel is possible and soon learn the consequences of trying to change the past. This story does have an important reason for trying to create the time travel, we are placed into a Brooklyn neighbourhood that has been dealing with police shooting, overly aggressive gang mentality and will have signs of poverty. Outside of this side of the story, we are dealing with really bad time travel decisions, even though the characters seem clear of what not to do. We won’t go into the non-ending either, which leaves us with nothing after what has happened through the film, this does just feel like an unfinished script, that really wants deal with topical issues through the film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film does come from the panic involved once the first incident happens, it is more neighbourhood action, rather anything else, while the time travel might dive into basic science behind time travel, which does work well, it is the behaviour from people that believe they understand it that let everything down.
Settings – The film is set in Brooklyn which shows the environment the two friends are around, which brings the combustible elements.
Scene of the Movie – See You Yesterday.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of CJ’s decisions.
Final Thoughts – Messy time travel film, which does deal with big topical issues the best it can, sadly, get caught in the middle of both worlds.
Overall: Missed the point.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Equity (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Today’s movie for your consideration is from the same selection of films you’d find ‘The Boiler Room’ with only this one is far more ‘reality based’. A financial thriller depicting the cutthroat and take-no-prisoners world of investment banking and Wall Street. ‘Equity’ is directed by Meera Menon and written by Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, and Amy Fox. The film centers on investment banker, Naomi Bishop who is attempting to put together one of the biggest deals in her life and Wall Street history after her first ‘failure’, while combating rivals in and outside her own company, across gender lines, and a federal investigation focusing on someone she knows intimately … Or so she thinks.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
Verdict: Zellweger Shines
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Becky (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Mindless violence and Kevin James in a dramatic role? Colour me intrigued.
Becky's life hasn't been the smoothest ride, but when her dad brings her up to their cabin things start to look up... briefly. The excitement is short-lived when his girlfriend turns up with her son and they reveal they have some wonderful news to share. Unfortunately that's not the worst thing that's going to happen this trip.
I don't want to say that Becky deserved everything that happened to her in the film... but I wasn't mad when it did happen. It was an interesting film, I felt little to nothing for her as a character and I had a real desire for the bad guys to win (to some degree).
This desire built quite quickly in the beginning, I was having serious misgivings about choosing to buy it. The whole lead up was a challenge, Becky was obnoxious and nothing seemed to be happening. But thankfully it did pick up.
Becky has a relatively small cast and they're well selected. Kevin James is a pleasant surprise in this dramatic role. I love seeing people take on something out of character, and I thought his performance as Dominick was impressive. There may have been a couple of points that seemed a little out of place, but on the whole the part was well scripted and James' depiction was very convincing. There was a slightly odd dynamic between Dominick and his minions, I liked the variety of personalities though, and Robert Maillet was definitely my favourite as Apex.
Lulu Wilson as Becky kept causing me problems. As I mentioned above, I didn't really like her as a character... I'm not sure quite where I fell out with her along the way. The beginning felt insanely unrealistic with regards to her behaviour, and while I found her to be less frustrating when the action started there was still something missing. I wonder if that might be to do with age. She's a 13-year-old girl, just a nudge into the higher teens might have made it more engaging.
I had to tap some expert knowledge when it came to the cinematography (thank you, Clare), after some investigation I'm going to say that there are a lot of transitions that lay somewhere between a match cut and an invisible cut. At the beginning of the film it's used to show the comparison of Becky at school and the convicts in prison, and that worked, I liked it. But it happens more, and that novelty value wore off quickly and I was expecting more of it, which became distracting.
There's a lot of gore on-screen throughout, with the accompaniment of some slightly dubious effects on occasions. On the whole the gratuitous violence amused me for its sheer outrageousness. One scene will get you a bit (well, it did me), you'll know it when you see it. Was all this violence needed? Probably not. Was it entertaining in the action of it all? Yes... probably.
Even with my conflicted feelings at the beginning of the film, I did come out enjoying myself. There are hints of a spicy Home Alone at work, somewhere just shy of Better Watch Out.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/becky-movie-review.html
Becky's life hasn't been the smoothest ride, but when her dad brings her up to their cabin things start to look up... briefly. The excitement is short-lived when his girlfriend turns up with her son and they reveal they have some wonderful news to share. Unfortunately that's not the worst thing that's going to happen this trip.
I don't want to say that Becky deserved everything that happened to her in the film... but I wasn't mad when it did happen. It was an interesting film, I felt little to nothing for her as a character and I had a real desire for the bad guys to win (to some degree).
This desire built quite quickly in the beginning, I was having serious misgivings about choosing to buy it. The whole lead up was a challenge, Becky was obnoxious and nothing seemed to be happening. But thankfully it did pick up.
Becky has a relatively small cast and they're well selected. Kevin James is a pleasant surprise in this dramatic role. I love seeing people take on something out of character, and I thought his performance as Dominick was impressive. There may have been a couple of points that seemed a little out of place, but on the whole the part was well scripted and James' depiction was very convincing. There was a slightly odd dynamic between Dominick and his minions, I liked the variety of personalities though, and Robert Maillet was definitely my favourite as Apex.
Lulu Wilson as Becky kept causing me problems. As I mentioned above, I didn't really like her as a character... I'm not sure quite where I fell out with her along the way. The beginning felt insanely unrealistic with regards to her behaviour, and while I found her to be less frustrating when the action started there was still something missing. I wonder if that might be to do with age. She's a 13-year-old girl, just a nudge into the higher teens might have made it more engaging.
I had to tap some expert knowledge when it came to the cinematography (thank you, Clare), after some investigation I'm going to say that there are a lot of transitions that lay somewhere between a match cut and an invisible cut. At the beginning of the film it's used to show the comparison of Becky at school and the convicts in prison, and that worked, I liked it. But it happens more, and that novelty value wore off quickly and I was expecting more of it, which became distracting.
There's a lot of gore on-screen throughout, with the accompaniment of some slightly dubious effects on occasions. On the whole the gratuitous violence amused me for its sheer outrageousness. One scene will get you a bit (well, it did me), you'll know it when you see it. Was all this violence needed? Probably not. Was it entertaining in the action of it all? Yes... probably.
Even with my conflicted feelings at the beginning of the film, I did come out enjoying myself. There are hints of a spicy Home Alone at work, somewhere just shy of Better Watch Out.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/becky-movie-review.html
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love and Monsters (2021) in Movies
Apr 25, 2021
This is the nearest I've gotten to having a surprise film without the cinema. Netflix, I applaud you.
The world has been ravaged by a plague of mutated animals and the remaining humans have been in hiding for the last seven years. But Joel's life has changed and now he wants to leave the colony to find the girl he loved when the world changed. The only problem? She's 85 miles away, and he's a little inept.
I really love a good disaster/apocalyptic film, and the "how it happens" portion is usually my favourite part. There's only a small amount of that, and I think they could have gone into that slightly more (because I always love an origin story). What we do get here though leads us in well and gives us a very quick and solid summation of what we need to know.
There's a slight Lost feeling to the whole film, and that's not a bad thing, it gave it a very comfortable vibe. What the story was showing the viewer, and where it leads were wonderfully crafted... and let's move on to the next bit before I start gushing.
Dylan O'Brien plays the lead role of Joel, as well as supplying his voiceover for the film as well, and both bits were just perfect. He's humorous, sweet, courageous and a bit scared from time to time, and you see that evolve throughout the film. There are times where you might want to give him a talking to about how the real world works, but ultimately he is exactly right for this story.
Along his journey, Joel meets Clyde (Michael Rooker) and Minnow (Ariana Greenblatt, who I felt like I knew but couldn't place. If you look her up you'll discover she is Young Gamora). These two are such an entertaining duo. Bonded through crisis, they're taken their own way and when they meet Joel they form a new connection and help him to become the person he needs to be. It was so well thought-out, and honestly, they nailed the casting. I'd happily watch a sequel of those two on their adventures.
Love and Monsters combines the film and the voiceover so well that it gives you a seamless story that isn't filled with forced scenes that are trying to get necessary points across. Every scene added value for me.
Looking at the effects and design you can tell someone had fun creating the creatures and landscape. They're vibrant and inventive, and the fact that they clearly thought through everything from the environments each colony live in, to what the creatures do, is just a delight on screen. I think the crab is by far my favourite example of this.
For a film I loved this much, I'm surprised at how little I've written. Are there things I could nitpick over? Possibly. But while there are things I'd have loved to see in the film, what we were given was exactly what it needed to be. There was a bit of everything and some moments of emotion that I really wasn't expecting. I'm just so glad I saw this film, and I had absolutely no hesitation in the score I gave this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/love-and-monsters-movie-review.html
The world has been ravaged by a plague of mutated animals and the remaining humans have been in hiding for the last seven years. But Joel's life has changed and now he wants to leave the colony to find the girl he loved when the world changed. The only problem? She's 85 miles away, and he's a little inept.
I really love a good disaster/apocalyptic film, and the "how it happens" portion is usually my favourite part. There's only a small amount of that, and I think they could have gone into that slightly more (because I always love an origin story). What we do get here though leads us in well and gives us a very quick and solid summation of what we need to know.
There's a slight Lost feeling to the whole film, and that's not a bad thing, it gave it a very comfortable vibe. What the story was showing the viewer, and where it leads were wonderfully crafted... and let's move on to the next bit before I start gushing.
Dylan O'Brien plays the lead role of Joel, as well as supplying his voiceover for the film as well, and both bits were just perfect. He's humorous, sweet, courageous and a bit scared from time to time, and you see that evolve throughout the film. There are times where you might want to give him a talking to about how the real world works, but ultimately he is exactly right for this story.
Along his journey, Joel meets Clyde (Michael Rooker) and Minnow (Ariana Greenblatt, who I felt like I knew but couldn't place. If you look her up you'll discover she is Young Gamora). These two are such an entertaining duo. Bonded through crisis, they're taken their own way and when they meet Joel they form a new connection and help him to become the person he needs to be. It was so well thought-out, and honestly, they nailed the casting. I'd happily watch a sequel of those two on their adventures.
Love and Monsters combines the film and the voiceover so well that it gives you a seamless story that isn't filled with forced scenes that are trying to get necessary points across. Every scene added value for me.
Looking at the effects and design you can tell someone had fun creating the creatures and landscape. They're vibrant and inventive, and the fact that they clearly thought through everything from the environments each colony live in, to what the creatures do, is just a delight on screen. I think the crab is by far my favourite example of this.
For a film I loved this much, I'm surprised at how little I've written. Are there things I could nitpick over? Possibly. But while there are things I'd have loved to see in the film, what we were given was exactly what it needed to be. There was a bit of everything and some moments of emotion that I really wasn't expecting. I'm just so glad I saw this film, and I had absolutely no hesitation in the score I gave this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/love-and-monsters-movie-review.html