Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Legend of Hell House (1973) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mr. Rudolph Deutsch has hired Lionel Barrett to investigate a haunted house. This isn't any normal haunted house though. It seems as though anyone who enters the house either leaves the house insane or winds up dead. In addition to Mr Barrett, his wife, Ann Barrett, a mental medium named Florence Tanner, and a physical medium who is also the only survivor of the last team of investigators to visit the house named Benjamin Fischer are all visiting Hell House to try and solve this phenomenon. $100,000 is theirs for the taking if they can do it within a week, but will they be able to survive what's caged inside Hell House? Emeric Belasco, a self-proclaimed genius ahead of his time, may have other plans.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
I’m just going to be honest. Drag Me To Hell is the movie we would have seen 22 years ago had Sam Raimi been given several million dollars, had Bruce Campbell been a woman and had there been no chainsaws handy. Not that this is a bad thing. I believe that Raimi fans will be quite pleased to see the cult and blockbuster director’s return to his roots.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Grindhouse (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Back in the 70’s cheaply made independent films often came into their own. The studio released films were drawing smaller audiences’ thanks in large part to the arrival of color television and a greater variety of entertainment that people could view in their homes.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Marvel's Avengers in Video Games
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Sep 21, 2020)
Great introduction to Ms Marvel (3 more)
Voice acting is great
Certain moments are very exciting to play as certain characters
DLC could be promising
Combat is very shoddy (3 more)
Lot of bugs
Upgrade system confusing
Campaign very short
Hidden under a cash grab is a good story
Unfortunately nothing new is going to be added here that game critic sites haven’t already covered but here is the review anyway.
It will come as no surprise that Marvel Avengers is nothing special. It is in fact a pretty poor game at launch - full of bugs and essentially a very short story. The story is good as is the voice acting (except for one major niggle which will be gotten to later) but the game promised the Avengers and what was given was perhaps maybe the Av part of the name - essentially a small part.
It’s difficult to envision how a Avengers game could work and what genre it would fall into. What is presented is probably the best way to portray an array of Marvel characters but it is dangerously close to mimicking the LEGO videogames. Certain parts can only be played by certain heroes, areas can only be accessed by certain heroes, etc etc.
You build up the Avengers one by one and unfortunately, this won’t give anything away, when you have established your roster of superheroes, the game essentially is finished. There is the endgame content, which personally hasn’t been explored yet, but overall it felt a little underwhelming.
The upgrade system was initially comparable to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey but what is actually is is just loot crates and different resources that you just boost to power up four different tiers. This system barely scratches the surface before the campaign is over so this may improve in the endgame but it is disappointing to see little needs to be done to tweak your hero the way you want him/her to be tweaked.
The combat system is ok. Kamala/ms Marvel, hulk, black widow and Thor feel good to handle as you smash through wave after wave of enemies but Captain America and in particular Iron Man both feel a little clunky. Cappy is way too weak initially to play with and you heavily rely on defending rather than attacking to survive. Iron Man’s flight controls and the way he ‘sprints’ are laughable. It doesn’t feel as badass as it should to play Iron Man and all his technological capabilities.
The voice acting is fantastic. The only issue is that veterans like Troy Baker (Bruce Banner) and Nolan North (Iron Man) are a little too recognisable now. Baker and North worked on the Uncharted series together as well as The Last of Us (the latter is really commendable as they really were unrecognisable in their roles). They have individually worked on a plethora of voice acting jobs yet here, because they are so well known, it takes you out of the moment from time to time. Is that Tony Stark or Nathan Drake? Banner or Joel? This observation is not a discredit to their talent but a mere unfortunate side effect to being so well known.
The biggest disappointment is, while micro transactions won’t involve power up capabilities- because of how clumsy the upgrade system is, it is more desirable to get outfits for your hero and in some cases it can be £15.99/$20.72 for one outfit. Given it is an aesthetic that seems pretty pathetic but there must be some people out there who just have the money to spare.
The prospect of DLC which will be free when it becomes available is attractive. With the likes of Hawkeye and Spider-Man already confirmed, it is with hope, the campaign story gets more fleshed out and gameplay will improve, certainly with regards to the upgrade system and making that properly work.
This game could have been more but it sadly falls into the cash cow category for now
Play this if you can get it on the cheap and wouldn’t mind playing one of the Avengers. It’s nothing special but it could have potential to grow.
It will come as no surprise that Marvel Avengers is nothing special. It is in fact a pretty poor game at launch - full of bugs and essentially a very short story. The story is good as is the voice acting (except for one major niggle which will be gotten to later) but the game promised the Avengers and what was given was perhaps maybe the Av part of the name - essentially a small part.
It’s difficult to envision how a Avengers game could work and what genre it would fall into. What is presented is probably the best way to portray an array of Marvel characters but it is dangerously close to mimicking the LEGO videogames. Certain parts can only be played by certain heroes, areas can only be accessed by certain heroes, etc etc.
You build up the Avengers one by one and unfortunately, this won’t give anything away, when you have established your roster of superheroes, the game essentially is finished. There is the endgame content, which personally hasn’t been explored yet, but overall it felt a little underwhelming.
The upgrade system was initially comparable to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey but what is actually is is just loot crates and different resources that you just boost to power up four different tiers. This system barely scratches the surface before the campaign is over so this may improve in the endgame but it is disappointing to see little needs to be done to tweak your hero the way you want him/her to be tweaked.
The combat system is ok. Kamala/ms Marvel, hulk, black widow and Thor feel good to handle as you smash through wave after wave of enemies but Captain America and in particular Iron Man both feel a little clunky. Cappy is way too weak initially to play with and you heavily rely on defending rather than attacking to survive. Iron Man’s flight controls and the way he ‘sprints’ are laughable. It doesn’t feel as badass as it should to play Iron Man and all his technological capabilities.
The voice acting is fantastic. The only issue is that veterans like Troy Baker (Bruce Banner) and Nolan North (Iron Man) are a little too recognisable now. Baker and North worked on the Uncharted series together as well as The Last of Us (the latter is really commendable as they really were unrecognisable in their roles). They have individually worked on a plethora of voice acting jobs yet here, because they are so well known, it takes you out of the moment from time to time. Is that Tony Stark or Nathan Drake? Banner or Joel? This observation is not a discredit to their talent but a mere unfortunate side effect to being so well known.
The biggest disappointment is, while micro transactions won’t involve power up capabilities- because of how clumsy the upgrade system is, it is more desirable to get outfits for your hero and in some cases it can be £15.99/$20.72 for one outfit. Given it is an aesthetic that seems pretty pathetic but there must be some people out there who just have the money to spare.
The prospect of DLC which will be free when it becomes available is attractive. With the likes of Hawkeye and Spider-Man already confirmed, it is with hope, the campaign story gets more fleshed out and gameplay will improve, certainly with regards to the upgrade system and making that properly work.
This game could have been more but it sadly falls into the cash cow category for now
Play this if you can get it on the cheap and wouldn’t mind playing one of the Avengers. It’s nothing special but it could have potential to grow.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Some assembly required
There's a lot about this movie I love (it used to be one of my favorite films to rewatch when I was a teenager), one thing that really stood out to me about watching this again for the first time in awhile, is how much Whedon understands the language of comics.
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....