Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Feb 28, 2023
When M. Night Shyamalan's name comes up on something, my brow furrows and I purse my lips... I'm never quite sure how to feel.
Eric, Andrew and Wen, take an idyllic trip to a peaceful cabin. But that peace is shattered when the knock-off Guardians of the Galaxy show up.
First thing I want to say, despite it being an M.NS film, it doesn't have the usual dubious tangent in it. I suspect we can put this down to the fact it's based on source material, namely The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Trembley.
I wanted to see what I could talk about without spoiling the film at all. The synopsis is fairly vague, but intriguing. Then I rewatched the trailer, and from that, I could probably talk about the majority of this hour and forty minute film. The latter basically telling everything makes me wonder how it wasn't spoiled for me going in.
Knock at the Cabin boils down to a look at personal faith in the face of terror, for those on both sides of the incident.
While the majority of the story is set in the isolated cabin, we're shown flashbacks to Eric and Andrew's life. Heartbreak, trauma, joy, vengeance, it has been filled with so much, and that being peppered into the main story really helps to shape how we see their separate personalities and reactions.
The acting is an interesting one. The nature of the situation means that everyone is feeling a massive cycle of emotions... and somehow that works.
The group dynamic of Eric, Andrew and Wen was incredible, with Jonathan Groff and Kristen Cui being the standouts. I don't know that I would have been on board with Ben Aldridge as Andrew if it hadn't been for the pairing with Groff.
Opposite them, we get an interesting mix of characters who are led by Leonard... I am so proud of Dave Bautista right now, this was an amazing performance. I love him doing comedy (My Spy is still probably my favourite), but this was a great change of pace, he channels the character's profession into the situation so well... 5 stars for Bautista, no notes.
The other three bring up the rear with some chaotic energy. I just cannot unsee Ron Weasley though. I know he's been in other things since then, but I haven't happened across any of them, and as such, he was entirely distracting. It wasn't a bad turn, but it did overwhelm Nikki Amuka-Bird and Abby Quinn's roles for me.
M. Night Shymalan does his cameo and throws in his usual colour references for the regular viewers. I won't go into that, as it definitely constitutes spoilers, but it might not be something that's common knowledge, so absolutely worth a Google afterwards.
IMDb lists Knock at the Cabin as horror, mystery and thriller. Thriller, check. Mystery, a stretch. Horror, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. Having "horror" over everything about this film put people off watching it, and that's a great shame.
I was left with one big thought after seeing this, and that's that somewhere, in a remote cabin, a group of people have been playing this game for the last 3 years.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2023/02/knock-at-cabin-movie-review.html
Eric, Andrew and Wen, take an idyllic trip to a peaceful cabin. But that peace is shattered when the knock-off Guardians of the Galaxy show up.
First thing I want to say, despite it being an M.NS film, it doesn't have the usual dubious tangent in it. I suspect we can put this down to the fact it's based on source material, namely The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Trembley.
I wanted to see what I could talk about without spoiling the film at all. The synopsis is fairly vague, but intriguing. Then I rewatched the trailer, and from that, I could probably talk about the majority of this hour and forty minute film. The latter basically telling everything makes me wonder how it wasn't spoiled for me going in.
Knock at the Cabin boils down to a look at personal faith in the face of terror, for those on both sides of the incident.
While the majority of the story is set in the isolated cabin, we're shown flashbacks to Eric and Andrew's life. Heartbreak, trauma, joy, vengeance, it has been filled with so much, and that being peppered into the main story really helps to shape how we see their separate personalities and reactions.
The acting is an interesting one. The nature of the situation means that everyone is feeling a massive cycle of emotions... and somehow that works.
The group dynamic of Eric, Andrew and Wen was incredible, with Jonathan Groff and Kristen Cui being the standouts. I don't know that I would have been on board with Ben Aldridge as Andrew if it hadn't been for the pairing with Groff.
Opposite them, we get an interesting mix of characters who are led by Leonard... I am so proud of Dave Bautista right now, this was an amazing performance. I love him doing comedy (My Spy is still probably my favourite), but this was a great change of pace, he channels the character's profession into the situation so well... 5 stars for Bautista, no notes.
The other three bring up the rear with some chaotic energy. I just cannot unsee Ron Weasley though. I know he's been in other things since then, but I haven't happened across any of them, and as such, he was entirely distracting. It wasn't a bad turn, but it did overwhelm Nikki Amuka-Bird and Abby Quinn's roles for me.
M. Night Shymalan does his cameo and throws in his usual colour references for the regular viewers. I won't go into that, as it definitely constitutes spoilers, but it might not be something that's common knowledge, so absolutely worth a Google afterwards.
IMDb lists Knock at the Cabin as horror, mystery and thriller. Thriller, check. Mystery, a stretch. Horror, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. Having "horror" over everything about this film put people off watching it, and that's a great shame.
I was left with one big thought after seeing this, and that's that somewhere, in a remote cabin, a group of people have been playing this game for the last 3 years.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2023/02/knock-at-cabin-movie-review.html
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
May 4, 2017
Action sequences (4 more)
Cast
Practical and CGI effects
Plot
Highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
Apple of Eden (1 more)
Not as much Past sequences as I'd like
Nothing is True...
Okay, so I have been a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise since the beginning and have enjoyed, at least to some extent for certain ones, all of the games that have been released thus far. I was so excited for this movie once I heard it was being made and spent the years waiting, worrying. Videogame Movies have had nothing but a bad rep throughout the many years and this was one I was hoping did not fail, or at least not be a failure for me.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Green Hornet has appeared in books, a television series, and perhaps in its most famous form, as a radio series. Adapting a superhero to the big screen is not without its share of challenges. For every Batman and Spiderman that sets box office records there are several that fail miserably, such as Daredevil, Elektra, The Phantom, The Shadow, and the first Hulk movie.
When it was first announced that Seth Rogen would star as the title character many people were first skeptical that a chubby comedian would be able to pull off the part. While the Green Hornet is not as iconic as Batman, the casting did bring to mind the controversy of casting Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight for Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader.
Further complicating matters were the delays and in the announcement that the film would be converted to 3-D in postproduction even though it was shot in 2-D. When the film failed to meet its anticipated holiday debut there were those that had wondered if the film would fail to meet even modest expectations as January certainly isn’t the time of year that action films, especially those based on a superhero, are released.
Thankfully the film is an extremely pleasant surprise that deftly mixes comedy and action with smart pacing in a winning formula. The film tells the story of Britt Reid (Rogen), the son of a wealthy newspaper owner who, despite his best efforts, always disappoints his father who never runs out of ways to criticize his only child. Britt, to his father’s dismay, has no ambition in his life and is content to live in the guesthouse of his father’s mansion, womanizing and embracing the party scene.
When his father dies unexpectedly, Britt is forced to take control of the newspaper, a job for which he is woefully unqualified. It is at this time that Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), his father’s long-time employee, responsible for taking care of the elder Reid’s very impressive fleet of cars.
One evening in an act of rebellion against the benevolent image of his father, Britt and Kato intervene to stop a crime. Motivated by their success and by Kato’s amazing ability to invent technology and modify vehicles, as well as his superb martial arts abilities, the duo set out to make a name for themselves by taking on the city’s criminal element.
While it first appears that Britt sees this as just some grand adventure, he soon becomes dedicated to the cause and sets upon a path to use his newspaper to play up his newly created hero. The plan is to make the Green Hornet appear to be a bad guy when in reality he is fighting to end crime. The convoluted idea has some initial success despite Britt’s lack of fighting ability. Britt and Kato soon begin to make a name for themselves in the local underworld as well is dominate the media.
At this time a young assistant named Lenora case (Cameron Diaz), comes to work for Britt. Britt and Kato are both captivated by Lenora and use her knowledge of criminal psychology to detail their plan of action for their alter egos. While Britt and Kato are buoyed by their initial success they soon find themselves under the scrutiny of the local crime boss Chudnofsky (Christopher Waltz), an insecure criminal who believes people don’t think he is scary enough or stylish enough.
Finding them an annoyance, Chudnofsky decides to wage all-out war on the Green Hornet and Kato and will rest at nothing to see them dead. As if this was not bad enough, Britt and Kato find themselves in a jealous rivalry over Lenora as well as their roles. Britt sees himself as the real hero and Kato as merely his sidekick. Kato naturally takes umbrage with this being not only the one who develops all of their gadgets, including the awesome black beauty equipped with bulletproof glass, machine guns, rocket launcher and a flamethrower, but also the one with the amazing fighting skills.
What follows is a hilarious and action packed film that is one of the most satisfying action-buddy-comedies ever made. Rogen is in his element cleverly playing Britt as an everyman who, despite having all the advantages of wealth, is still very much a kid playing superhero who has to learn about the important things in life .
The action sequences are fresh and entertaining and both Rogen and Chao pull off their roles very convincingly. While the plot is not overly complex it serves its point and propels the characters along without getting bogged down or becoming too ridiculous. Director Michel Gondry keeps the film moving at a steady pace without overstaying its welcome and does not allow the action to overtake the characters.
The supporting cast is very strong and the only real issue I had with the film was the converted 3-D that was totally unnecessary and did little to enhance the film. Very few sequence appeared to benefit from it. That being said I had a fantastic time at this film and I surely hope that we’ll be seeing other films in the series in the not too distant future.
When it was first announced that Seth Rogen would star as the title character many people were first skeptical that a chubby comedian would be able to pull off the part. While the Green Hornet is not as iconic as Batman, the casting did bring to mind the controversy of casting Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight for Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader.
Further complicating matters were the delays and in the announcement that the film would be converted to 3-D in postproduction even though it was shot in 2-D. When the film failed to meet its anticipated holiday debut there were those that had wondered if the film would fail to meet even modest expectations as January certainly isn’t the time of year that action films, especially those based on a superhero, are released.
Thankfully the film is an extremely pleasant surprise that deftly mixes comedy and action with smart pacing in a winning formula. The film tells the story of Britt Reid (Rogen), the son of a wealthy newspaper owner who, despite his best efforts, always disappoints his father who never runs out of ways to criticize his only child. Britt, to his father’s dismay, has no ambition in his life and is content to live in the guesthouse of his father’s mansion, womanizing and embracing the party scene.
When his father dies unexpectedly, Britt is forced to take control of the newspaper, a job for which he is woefully unqualified. It is at this time that Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), his father’s long-time employee, responsible for taking care of the elder Reid’s very impressive fleet of cars.
One evening in an act of rebellion against the benevolent image of his father, Britt and Kato intervene to stop a crime. Motivated by their success and by Kato’s amazing ability to invent technology and modify vehicles, as well as his superb martial arts abilities, the duo set out to make a name for themselves by taking on the city’s criminal element.
While it first appears that Britt sees this as just some grand adventure, he soon becomes dedicated to the cause and sets upon a path to use his newspaper to play up his newly created hero. The plan is to make the Green Hornet appear to be a bad guy when in reality he is fighting to end crime. The convoluted idea has some initial success despite Britt’s lack of fighting ability. Britt and Kato soon begin to make a name for themselves in the local underworld as well is dominate the media.
At this time a young assistant named Lenora case (Cameron Diaz), comes to work for Britt. Britt and Kato are both captivated by Lenora and use her knowledge of criminal psychology to detail their plan of action for their alter egos. While Britt and Kato are buoyed by their initial success they soon find themselves under the scrutiny of the local crime boss Chudnofsky (Christopher Waltz), an insecure criminal who believes people don’t think he is scary enough or stylish enough.
Finding them an annoyance, Chudnofsky decides to wage all-out war on the Green Hornet and Kato and will rest at nothing to see them dead. As if this was not bad enough, Britt and Kato find themselves in a jealous rivalry over Lenora as well as their roles. Britt sees himself as the real hero and Kato as merely his sidekick. Kato naturally takes umbrage with this being not only the one who develops all of their gadgets, including the awesome black beauty equipped with bulletproof glass, machine guns, rocket launcher and a flamethrower, but also the one with the amazing fighting skills.
What follows is a hilarious and action packed film that is one of the most satisfying action-buddy-comedies ever made. Rogen is in his element cleverly playing Britt as an everyman who, despite having all the advantages of wealth, is still very much a kid playing superhero who has to learn about the important things in life .
The action sequences are fresh and entertaining and both Rogen and Chao pull off their roles very convincingly. While the plot is not overly complex it serves its point and propels the characters along without getting bogged down or becoming too ridiculous. Director Michel Gondry keeps the film moving at a steady pace without overstaying its welcome and does not allow the action to overtake the characters.
The supporting cast is very strong and the only real issue I had with the film was the converted 3-D that was totally unnecessary and did little to enhance the film. Very few sequence appeared to benefit from it. That being said I had a fantastic time at this film and I surely hope that we’ll be seeing other films in the series in the not too distant future.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.