Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The first time I saw Trainspotting was my senior year of high school. At the time, I knew that I wanted to get involved in film, and I really did for about ¾ of a year after I graduated. I looked at movies for their artistry and cinematography even at a young age. I was a band geek, so music was also things I would love about movies. I was deep for a 17-year-old, or so I thought any way. But I explain this to you so you don’t think that I loved this movie simply because of the drug use or humor it presented. I have always been of the mind to find something I like about a movie, watch it for what it is, and try to just find the enjoyment value (I know, weird coming from a film reviewer). I didn’t even have to try for Trainspotting. It was the complete package, and ground breaking. It also introduced me to Ewan McGregor, who is one of my favorite actors. I loved the movie so much, I bought Irvine Welsh’s book that the movie was based on of the same title, Trainspotting, which I highly recommend simply for the fact that it’s written in phonetic Scottish. I never picked up Porno, the literary sequel to Trainspotting, but I hear it is bizarre and will need to pick it up, but not because of this movie. I’ll explain in a moment.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange (1971) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is your average eighteen year old boy...if by average, you mean he fully embraces the old ultraviolence and wanders the streets with his three droogs causing havoc and doing whatever he likes; skipping school, breaking and entering, rape, and assault is just another average day in Alex's life. However, when a planned rape turns into an "accidental" murder, things start to turn fowl for Alex. His droogs turn on him and he winds up being caught by the police. He is then taken to a correctional facility where he spends the next few years, puts on the front that he's fully embraced the bible and that he's now a changed man. But when word makes round of the experimental Ludovico treatment, Alex realizes his chance at freedom and jumps through the proper hoops to get out of the penitentiary he finds himself in and get into the experimental facility where he can be "cured."
Alex is promised that he'll be a free man within a fortnight. The treatment consists of a drug known as Serum 114 being injected into the patient before making them sit through short films such as a man being beaten to a pulp, a woman being the sexual victim of several men, and a Nazi concentration camp film set to the soundtrack of Beethoven's ninth symphony. Alex begins to feel sick during the films and the doctors insist that it's part of the cure. Alex's love for music and Beethoven in general become one of the adverse effects of the treatment as the ninth symphony has the same effect on Alex as the urge to beat or rape someone would. Alex soon comes to realize that you can never go home again and that being a free man isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially after a treatment such as this.
It took 37 years after its initial theatrical release and 24 years of being alive on this planet (the original viewing of this film was in 2008) to finally get around to seeing A Clockwork Orange. The film starts and it makes the viewer feel like they've missed something entirely that everyone else already knows about, but as the film unravels it snowballs into a unique vision of cinema. There are shades of Altered States in A Clockwork Orange, but A Clockwork Orange feels much more polarizing in its presentation in comparison. Stanley Kubrick tries to shine this spotlight of beauty onto the most heinous of actions as the film’s classical score becomes the soundtrack to ferocious and almost inhuman desires. This is Kubrick’s adaptation of the 1962 novel of the same name written by Anthony Burgess and it’s incredible how the film is able to remain captivating over a two hour period.
The film has a stunning restoration on the two-disc Blu-ray anniversary edition. Kubrick always had a brilliant eye when it came to perspective and camera placement; the majority of that could be contributed to Kubrick’s frequent collaborations with cinematographer John Alcott. The long hallway shots and close-ups on memorably haunting facial expressions are some of the most significant scenes in the film. A Clockwork Orange is loaded with vibrant colors that make every frame jump off the screen despite the film nearing half a century in age. This was the first film to take advantage of Dolby Digital surround sound, which contributes to the film sounding as good as it does.
Even with Stanley Kubrick as director, A Clockwork Orange wouldn’t be the same without Malcolm McDowell. McDowell fits the Alex DeLarge role as perfectly as Robert Downey Jr fits Tony Stark; these actors are these characters. The speeches McDowell gives in the film along with how traumatized he is after the treatment process are two of the biggest takeaways after viewing the film. This was one of McDowell’s first on-screen roles, which is surprising given how enthralling he is. You will never think of, “Singin’ in the Rain,” the same way again after viewing A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is a unique expedition into insanity no matter how you look at it. The dialogue is unusual and the characters are this fantastic blend of bizarre and diabolical, but the film is consistently engrossing and never seems to lag. Prior to 1986, the A Clockwork Orange novel was published in the US without its final chapter and that’s the version of the film Kubrick adapted. Anthony Burgess praised Kubrick’s version of the film despite this, which is more than what Stephen King did with Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. Every shot in A Clockwork Orange grabs your attention largely in part to how it’s presented or the colors that leap off the screen. The novel is written in a way that’s difficult to read and that often translates on-screen. Like most of Kubrick’s work, A Clockwork Orange is for a specific audience. It is perhaps what Malcolm McDowell is known best for and probably shouldn’t be recommended to just anyone since it would likely soar over a modern day moviegoer. This isn’t the type of film to have on in the background while you text or play games on your phone. Ultraviolence is something you have to embrace and give your undivided attention to.
This is viewed by some as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever by some, but it isn’t any less pretentious than the rest of Stanley Kubrick’s work. A Clockwork Orange is mesmerizing with a performance from Malcolm McDowell that leaves a long lasting impact, but its affinity to utilize difficult to decipher jargon, nonstop innuendo being slammed into your face, and overuse of animalistic violence shackles the film from being more appealing to a wider audience. From a personal standpoint, A Clockwork Orange is one of Kubrick's best but it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be for everyone.
Alex is promised that he'll be a free man within a fortnight. The treatment consists of a drug known as Serum 114 being injected into the patient before making them sit through short films such as a man being beaten to a pulp, a woman being the sexual victim of several men, and a Nazi concentration camp film set to the soundtrack of Beethoven's ninth symphony. Alex begins to feel sick during the films and the doctors insist that it's part of the cure. Alex's love for music and Beethoven in general become one of the adverse effects of the treatment as the ninth symphony has the same effect on Alex as the urge to beat or rape someone would. Alex soon comes to realize that you can never go home again and that being a free man isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially after a treatment such as this.
It took 37 years after its initial theatrical release and 24 years of being alive on this planet (the original viewing of this film was in 2008) to finally get around to seeing A Clockwork Orange. The film starts and it makes the viewer feel like they've missed something entirely that everyone else already knows about, but as the film unravels it snowballs into a unique vision of cinema. There are shades of Altered States in A Clockwork Orange, but A Clockwork Orange feels much more polarizing in its presentation in comparison. Stanley Kubrick tries to shine this spotlight of beauty onto the most heinous of actions as the film’s classical score becomes the soundtrack to ferocious and almost inhuman desires. This is Kubrick’s adaptation of the 1962 novel of the same name written by Anthony Burgess and it’s incredible how the film is able to remain captivating over a two hour period.
The film has a stunning restoration on the two-disc Blu-ray anniversary edition. Kubrick always had a brilliant eye when it came to perspective and camera placement; the majority of that could be contributed to Kubrick’s frequent collaborations with cinematographer John Alcott. The long hallway shots and close-ups on memorably haunting facial expressions are some of the most significant scenes in the film. A Clockwork Orange is loaded with vibrant colors that make every frame jump off the screen despite the film nearing half a century in age. This was the first film to take advantage of Dolby Digital surround sound, which contributes to the film sounding as good as it does.
Even with Stanley Kubrick as director, A Clockwork Orange wouldn’t be the same without Malcolm McDowell. McDowell fits the Alex DeLarge role as perfectly as Robert Downey Jr fits Tony Stark; these actors are these characters. The speeches McDowell gives in the film along with how traumatized he is after the treatment process are two of the biggest takeaways after viewing the film. This was one of McDowell’s first on-screen roles, which is surprising given how enthralling he is. You will never think of, “Singin’ in the Rain,” the same way again after viewing A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is a unique expedition into insanity no matter how you look at it. The dialogue is unusual and the characters are this fantastic blend of bizarre and diabolical, but the film is consistently engrossing and never seems to lag. Prior to 1986, the A Clockwork Orange novel was published in the US without its final chapter and that’s the version of the film Kubrick adapted. Anthony Burgess praised Kubrick’s version of the film despite this, which is more than what Stephen King did with Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. Every shot in A Clockwork Orange grabs your attention largely in part to how it’s presented or the colors that leap off the screen. The novel is written in a way that’s difficult to read and that often translates on-screen. Like most of Kubrick’s work, A Clockwork Orange is for a specific audience. It is perhaps what Malcolm McDowell is known best for and probably shouldn’t be recommended to just anyone since it would likely soar over a modern day moviegoer. This isn’t the type of film to have on in the background while you text or play games on your phone. Ultraviolence is something you have to embrace and give your undivided attention to.
This is viewed by some as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever by some, but it isn’t any less pretentious than the rest of Stanley Kubrick’s work. A Clockwork Orange is mesmerizing with a performance from Malcolm McDowell that leaves a long lasting impact, but its affinity to utilize difficult to decipher jargon, nonstop innuendo being slammed into your face, and overuse of animalistic violence shackles the film from being more appealing to a wider audience. From a personal standpoint, A Clockwork Orange is one of Kubrick's best but it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be for everyone.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Yes, I'm a scared cat and bailed out on the Unlimited Screening of this. Those of you on Twitter know that I prefer my horrors to be brightly lit with ample opportunity to scream at the idiots on the screen who are quite clearly going to get themselves killed. That being said, I did decide to see it after reading some general comments after the screening. I believe the phrase I used was "Suck it up, Emma. You can do this."
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
It all looked soooo promising
Contains spoilers, click to show
Let me say this upfront; David Harbour looks f---ing boss as Hellboy. The makeup is far superior to that of Ron Perlman, not that there was anything wrong with Ron Perlman’s, but with this new incarnation it’s all in the eyes. Deep red, sunken, pained. Sadly, that is all I can say about this movie that is one hundred percent genuinely positive. There are positives however, but they come with a big ‘however’.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) becomes the most desirable girl in high school over one fateful summer; she's definitely not like the other girls her age though. While most guys want to do everything imaginable to her, she's turned them all down. The only guy she really gives the time of day is her best friend, Emmet (Michael Welch). That is until a certain incident at a pool party comes between them. Now nine months later, Mandy has distanced herself from Emmet and has a group of new friends. These friends have decided to invite Mandy to a ranch out in the middle of nowhere for a few days and the guys who tag along hope to accomplish what, up to this point, has been impossible. But when people begin to turn up missing, they soon realize that they're not alone and someone is taking their obsession with Mandy Lane a little too far.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Nov 5, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I enjoyed this because it was basically bat shit crazy, but I also had some issues with it. The trailers looked great but going back to them now you see quite a lot of action from key points in the film. Because of the haphazard nature of everything I don't think it spoils anything but at the time I couldn't remember many of the trailers going in. The vibe I remembered getting from them was very much You're Next with a vague hint of Clue.
What stopped me in my tracks a little was what the film was trying to be. I thought it was going to be a homedy (yes I'm still trying to make my horror-comedy hybrid work), your traditional crazy horror with a comedic leaning... but what happened was a lot of drama, they were actually trying to be serious. Well, as serious as you can get when you're in the middle of hunting a bride on her wedding night. When mother and son sit to have a heart to heart I was actually taken out of the film for a moment as it wasn't in keeping with what else was happening.
Had this gone all the way over to crazy horror I would have given it a higher rating, they're fast paced and entertaining, the slight indecisiveness of what came to the screen really knocked it down for me. Even with the bizarre magic box tradition this film could have been something more serious but not by the time we get to that ending.
I'm really thankful that this game adaptation was at least better than Truth Or Dare. I don't think I could stand another stinker like that. The story is a nice easy one to get along with, family acquire a magic box that keeps them thriving and all they have to do is occasionally sacrifice someone that's loved deeply by one of the family... good old Satan bringing us a solid storyline.
Samara Weaving, or as I have to keep reminding myself "not Margot Robbie", plays our blushing bride, Grace. Boy does she throw a lot at this role, I like to think she got a lot of stress relief out of this as she fights back at her would be murderers. Thankfully Grace didn't end up in many of the drama-y bits so there was little to be annoyed about. Her magic moments included punching Georgie, swearing at the car and wailing like a banshee at the end like she'd gone feral. Bravo! But I think the best and worst bit was when she climbed out of hell, you knew what she was thinking, you knew she had no option and oh my god did I hurt in sympathy.
Adam Brody has to be the other stand out performance for me as the brother-in-law, Daniel Le Domas. We get a very small introduction to his character as a child but it really did help you to understand the way he is and why he reacts the way he does as they hunt Grace. The guilt he has from the first Hide & Seek he participated in is clearly part of the reason he's the son who's off the rails, but he keeps his protective nature from his childhood in adulthood towards his brother and Grace. He stops and talks with Grace during the hunt and you can see him switching allegiances as we get further through the story. Brody conveys this well and is actually the one character that you can sort of sympathise with. His death is the beginning of the end and it's an emotional moment that played out well on screen. I think he probably came out better not surviving to the end of the film.
There are lots of highs and lows with various characters throughout. Fitch is the "dumb" one and there was something magical about seeing him YouTubing how to use a crossbow and later asking Charity at what point they should cut and run.
Mark O'Brien as Alex Le Domas was probably my least favourite character. His scripting felt rather bland compared to some of the others... but mainly... what an arsehole! Just live in sin man! Why potentially doom her, I'm sure it wouldn't have been too hard to fall off the radar somehow. If he was already slightly estranged I can't see that going altogether would be much of a stretch.
Alex also gets what is possibly the most annoying part of the script, he's handcuffed to the bed and he starts using the chain as a saw to try to get through the ornamental bar... these aren't bit of Ikea furniture... in what universe is that going to work in this timeframe?! Stand up and throw your weight on it until it snaps! I was wondering if he was actually trying to break the handcuffs (an equally stupid idea), and do we actually see how he gets out of them? Now I've confused myself.
Anyway, this will become an epic if I don't move on.
I quite liked the way the film looked, once we got to the evening the whole set became a beautiful golden autumnal palette and it gave you a sense of wealth and history, but when you add in the blood and seeking you get a real sense of the hiding (that makes sense in my head). It did at times become dark, it was never so bad that you couldn't see what was happening but it allowed for the reintroduction of light at the end as the house burns behind her which was a nice touch.
The final sequence should probably get its own mention. Alex, obviously about to break after seeing his brother die and Grace bludgeoning his mother, is bizarrely confirming his fears that the pair will not be together after what has happened. He then turns on her so he can get back the only thing left in his life, his (now slightly smaller) family. I loved the slightly vampiric turn the scene took as they're exposed to the morning sun, I'm not sure I'd have recoiled from it quite so much but I appreciated the comedic value it added. The family's actual demise and Grace's ghost sighting are the reason this needed to be a homedy (Still no? Whatever.), there's no way that fits in with anything more serious. And I'm sorry but overall I didn't find it that funny, much like Last Blood I was reacting to the ridiculous violence.
I like to think that as the last bit of the house disintegrates in the fire and Grace is still sitting bleeding on the steps that a firefighter comes over with the seemingly untouched magic box and hands it to her because it looks like a family heirloom. She's a Le Domas now, and everything is hers...
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/ready-or-not-spoilers-movie-review.html
What stopped me in my tracks a little was what the film was trying to be. I thought it was going to be a homedy (yes I'm still trying to make my horror-comedy hybrid work), your traditional crazy horror with a comedic leaning... but what happened was a lot of drama, they were actually trying to be serious. Well, as serious as you can get when you're in the middle of hunting a bride on her wedding night. When mother and son sit to have a heart to heart I was actually taken out of the film for a moment as it wasn't in keeping with what else was happening.
Had this gone all the way over to crazy horror I would have given it a higher rating, they're fast paced and entertaining, the slight indecisiveness of what came to the screen really knocked it down for me. Even with the bizarre magic box tradition this film could have been something more serious but not by the time we get to that ending.
I'm really thankful that this game adaptation was at least better than Truth Or Dare. I don't think I could stand another stinker like that. The story is a nice easy one to get along with, family acquire a magic box that keeps them thriving and all they have to do is occasionally sacrifice someone that's loved deeply by one of the family... good old Satan bringing us a solid storyline.
Samara Weaving, or as I have to keep reminding myself "not Margot Robbie", plays our blushing bride, Grace. Boy does she throw a lot at this role, I like to think she got a lot of stress relief out of this as she fights back at her would be murderers. Thankfully Grace didn't end up in many of the drama-y bits so there was little to be annoyed about. Her magic moments included punching Georgie, swearing at the car and wailing like a banshee at the end like she'd gone feral. Bravo! But I think the best and worst bit was when she climbed out of hell, you knew what she was thinking, you knew she had no option and oh my god did I hurt in sympathy.
Adam Brody has to be the other stand out performance for me as the brother-in-law, Daniel Le Domas. We get a very small introduction to his character as a child but it really did help you to understand the way he is and why he reacts the way he does as they hunt Grace. The guilt he has from the first Hide & Seek he participated in is clearly part of the reason he's the son who's off the rails, but he keeps his protective nature from his childhood in adulthood towards his brother and Grace. He stops and talks with Grace during the hunt and you can see him switching allegiances as we get further through the story. Brody conveys this well and is actually the one character that you can sort of sympathise with. His death is the beginning of the end and it's an emotional moment that played out well on screen. I think he probably came out better not surviving to the end of the film.
There are lots of highs and lows with various characters throughout. Fitch is the "dumb" one and there was something magical about seeing him YouTubing how to use a crossbow and later asking Charity at what point they should cut and run.
Mark O'Brien as Alex Le Domas was probably my least favourite character. His scripting felt rather bland compared to some of the others... but mainly... what an arsehole! Just live in sin man! Why potentially doom her, I'm sure it wouldn't have been too hard to fall off the radar somehow. If he was already slightly estranged I can't see that going altogether would be much of a stretch.
Alex also gets what is possibly the most annoying part of the script, he's handcuffed to the bed and he starts using the chain as a saw to try to get through the ornamental bar... these aren't bit of Ikea furniture... in what universe is that going to work in this timeframe?! Stand up and throw your weight on it until it snaps! I was wondering if he was actually trying to break the handcuffs (an equally stupid idea), and do we actually see how he gets out of them? Now I've confused myself.
Anyway, this will become an epic if I don't move on.
I quite liked the way the film looked, once we got to the evening the whole set became a beautiful golden autumnal palette and it gave you a sense of wealth and history, but when you add in the blood and seeking you get a real sense of the hiding (that makes sense in my head). It did at times become dark, it was never so bad that you couldn't see what was happening but it allowed for the reintroduction of light at the end as the house burns behind her which was a nice touch.
The final sequence should probably get its own mention. Alex, obviously about to break after seeing his brother die and Grace bludgeoning his mother, is bizarrely confirming his fears that the pair will not be together after what has happened. He then turns on her so he can get back the only thing left in his life, his (now slightly smaller) family. I loved the slightly vampiric turn the scene took as they're exposed to the morning sun, I'm not sure I'd have recoiled from it quite so much but I appreciated the comedic value it added. The family's actual demise and Grace's ghost sighting are the reason this needed to be a homedy (Still no? Whatever.), there's no way that fits in with anything more serious. And I'm sorry but overall I didn't find it that funny, much like Last Blood I was reacting to the ridiculous violence.
I like to think that as the last bit of the house disintegrates in the fire and Grace is still sitting bleeding on the steps that a firefighter comes over with the seemingly untouched magic box and hands it to her because it looks like a family heirloom. She's a Le Domas now, and everything is hers...
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/ready-or-not-spoilers-movie-review.html