Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021
Suffers from Sequel-itis
If you ever heard of the term “Sequel-itis” and wondered what a good example of film suffering from this malady would be, look no further than VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE.
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
John Garrett (27 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2017
Story (3 more)
Mo-cap
Cgi
Woody Harrleson
Cesar's trillogy concludes in fitting style
Contains spoilers, click to show
The final instalment of mat Reeves planet of the apes prequel trilogy comes to a close in style with what I must say is a spectacular performance from Andy Serkis.
He once again portrays Cesar who is looking for a new home for the apes as the last remainig Human army are hunting them down and trying to wipe them out. After a cesars family is slane he takes the fight to the army.
This film doesn't take the easy route and zigs where it should day which makes it a compelling watch throughout.
The true stars in the film have to be the effects and animation crew. The scenery was breathtaking and the work on the apes was spectacular.
In fact all the apes were cgi and the "main ones" were all mo-capped using actors. The actors behind these guys really shone through which is an impressive feat on its own.
Woody Harrleson once plays a great foil for cesar, in the menacing yet relatable commander. Woody brings a real gravitas to a role which some actors could have turned into a cartoon villain.
All in all the final prequel or cesars story was a fitting end to a series of movies that have been compelling and full of excitement.
He once again portrays Cesar who is looking for a new home for the apes as the last remainig Human army are hunting them down and trying to wipe them out. After a cesars family is slane he takes the fight to the army.
This film doesn't take the easy route and zigs where it should day which makes it a compelling watch throughout.
The true stars in the film have to be the effects and animation crew. The scenery was breathtaking and the work on the apes was spectacular.
In fact all the apes were cgi and the "main ones" were all mo-capped using actors. The actors behind these guys really shone through which is an impressive feat on its own.
Woody Harrleson once plays a great foil for cesar, in the menacing yet relatable commander. Woody brings a real gravitas to a role which some actors could have turned into a cartoon villain.
All in all the final prequel or cesars story was a fitting end to a series of movies that have been compelling and full of excitement.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Predator (1987) in Movies
Feb 5, 2019
CGI Effects (they're so bad they're good) (1 more)
EXPLOSIONS! I swear, 80s action movies really went all out.
The Predator dies (was I the only one rooting for that alien asshole? I mean come on, he's a highly skilled alien hunter, it hardly seems likely he's going to die...) (1 more)
Covering yourself in mud does not kill your heat signature. It does briefly, but only for like two minutes before your body temp heats it up. Dutch would not have been 'invisible' to Preds for that long. This annoyed me so bad lol
A Cult Classic
It's been a looong time since I've watched the Predator/Alien movies over and they never disappoint me. The perfect mix of action, sci fi and horror elements, this is a gritty movie you can really sink your teeth into (and hell - Arnie in the 80s was some serious eye candy). I love how terrible the CGI is (though back in 87 it would've been on point), it really gives you that 'look how far we've come in technology' feel. It's got explosions, cursing, eye candy, an original alien concept (for the 80s), blood, guts, and gore. I mean, when you're looking for an old school action/sci fi that satisfies your need for grunge, go no further, this is the movie. It's still one of my favourites to this day :)
Sam (228 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Action (2 more)
Realistic CGI
Amazing Acting
Weak Ending (1 more)
Missing Something
Great Start, Great Action, Weak Finish
I absolutely loved this film up until the last half hour. This film had a strong beginning, strong middle, and a weak ending. The action scenes were absolutely beautiful and watching Brock, the main character, slowly getting taken over by this monster (Venom) was a masterpiece of acting. I loved watching them interact together, however their relationship went from being absolutely terrifying and brilliant to quickly fast formed friends. I would have liked to see this transition better rather than the fast switch that took place. Considering this to be a key part within the formation of the film I can't in good conscious give it more than rate it at a 7/10 as it made the ending weak and clunky. If this transition was more smooth and played out then I would rate it much higher. In my opinion, Venom is a monster bent on taking over the planet, however in this film he went from villianous to superhero in the matter of minutes. If the time had been taken to smooth out these kinks the film would have been perfect. This being said the action scenes were outstanding, the acting beautiful, and the CGI which played heavily given the film was actually very well done.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Different to other Marvel films (1 more)
Strong female characters
CGI (2 more)
Some under developed characters
Weak villain
Good but a little overrated
Considering the general praise for this film, I had been expecting great things and although for a Marvel origins film it's pretty good, I still found it a bit disappointing.
I like T'Challa as a main character and I love some of the strong female characters in this film. His sister especially is fantastic and brings some welcome humour too. This isn't your typical Marvel film, and feels like it has more meaning and depth, although this means the humour side is a little lacking. Its also good not to have this bogged down with other characters from the universe.
My problems were that it felt like it dragged a bit and I was almost getting bored. The CGI is very patchy in places to the point it gets distracting and despite some good characters, I feel a lot of others are very under developed, like Forest Whitaker and Daniel Kaluuya. Martin Freeman's character could have been removed from the film entirely with no impact. Also I felt Erik was a bit of a weak villain and Andy Serkis was much more better placed and would have brought a bit more character.
All in all its a good and different origin story, but not one of my favourites.
I like T'Challa as a main character and I love some of the strong female characters in this film. His sister especially is fantastic and brings some welcome humour too. This isn't your typical Marvel film, and feels like it has more meaning and depth, although this means the humour side is a little lacking. Its also good not to have this bogged down with other characters from the universe.
My problems were that it felt like it dragged a bit and I was almost getting bored. The CGI is very patchy in places to the point it gets distracting and despite some good characters, I feel a lot of others are very under developed, like Forest Whitaker and Daniel Kaluuya. Martin Freeman's character could have been removed from the film entirely with no impact. Also I felt Erik was a bit of a weak villain and Andy Serkis was much more better placed and would have brought a bit more character.
All in all its a good and different origin story, but not one of my favourites.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated MAC and Me (1988) in Movies
Jul 17, 2018
Bad acting (2 more)
Horrible costumes
Terrible CGI
Horrible movie but entertaining with friends
This was a horrible movie but entertaining since I watched it with friends.
Released 6 years after ET, which is comparable. Yet the CGI was worse and the costumes were horrible. I don't understand the plot exactly and the ending was just weird and bad.
The characters were not likeable, the acting was terrible. So much product placement from McDonald's and coca cola. We laughed at the aliens but they were just annoying.
Not sure if this was self aware about how bad it is but that's what it is. Bad. Don't even ask about that ending. I am as confused as anyone.
***Spoiler alert*** chased by government which soon goes away and suddenly the aliens are granted us citizenship with noone questioning anything. Oh and the daddy alien is wearing a suit.....yeah this movie was weird ***end spoiler***
I would still say give it a watch but watch it with friends so you can laugh at it. This is like the lower budget ET except no emotion osr redeeming qualities. The characters reactions to the aliens were too calm and rational and I have no idea of the point of the government chasing them. Didn't build to anything.
The lesson I came away with was that coca cola seems to solve everything.
Released 6 years after ET, which is comparable. Yet the CGI was worse and the costumes were horrible. I don't understand the plot exactly and the ending was just weird and bad.
The characters were not likeable, the acting was terrible. So much product placement from McDonald's and coca cola. We laughed at the aliens but they were just annoying.
Not sure if this was self aware about how bad it is but that's what it is. Bad. Don't even ask about that ending. I am as confused as anyone.
***Spoiler alert*** chased by government which soon goes away and suddenly the aliens are granted us citizenship with noone questioning anything. Oh and the daddy alien is wearing a suit.....yeah this movie was weird ***end spoiler***
I would still say give it a watch but watch it with friends so you can laugh at it. This is like the lower budget ET except no emotion osr redeeming qualities. The characters reactions to the aliens were too calm and rational and I have no idea of the point of the government chasing them. Didn't build to anything.
The lesson I came away with was that coca cola seems to solve everything.
Rickey A. Mossow Jr. (689 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
Jason Momoa makes Aquaman a cool superhero. (2 more)
CGI is beautiful.
Amber Heard is gorgeous here with her red hair.
The story is all over the place. (1 more)
Acting is a bit cheesy in some parts.
Made Aquaman cool, but not without its flaws.
To be honest, I've never viewed Aquaman as a major character in the DC Universe. He was always that weird cousin that everybody just kinda puts up with and halfheartedly oohs and aahs when he tells a dolphin to pull a rope. So, firstly, props to Jason Momoa for bringing the grit and toughness to this superhero. He makes Aquaman cool, if for the first time ever. Also, the movie is beautiful. The fight scenes are well shot and the CGI makes every land a picturesque landscape of color and flash. Also, Amber Heard is absolutely gorgeous in this movie. Her red hair and outfits pop every time she's on the screen. The story, however, is kind of all over the place. How do they stop pollution? Isn't it a bad thing to let someone die? What are these people's motives? The film feels like its a bit too long as well. Did I enjoy the experience of the movie? Yes. Would I watch it again like I would other current superhero films? No. Still, great job making Aquaman a cool and valuable character again in the DC Universe.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Babadook (2014) in Movies
Dec 11, 2019
Minimalist Creep
Wow was I surprised by this. My daughters have been after me for a while to watch, but I have to not being a big fan of modern CGI horror like The Conjuring, Insidious, etc. I made the mistake of including this film in that group and I was wrong.
Modern audiences have grown short attention spans even having film studios get rid of opening film credits, so it is refreshing these days when a film takes its time and leaves something to our imagination. I have written in several reviews the last few years that just because modern filmmakers can do something, doesn't mean they should. Modern CGI effects leave virtually nothing a movie maker can accomplish with enough imagination are computer work done to it; however, I still maintain the "Jaws" theory of the less you show the audience the more they have to used their own imaginations and therefore the film's "Babadook" becomes even more scary.
I loved the way the creature was shown mostly in shadow and not really given a good glimpse most of the way through. Even when it presents itself, you don't really get a good look at it and a lot of the scare is also through creepy, haunting sound effects.
I guess I will have to listen to my daughters from now on!
Modern audiences have grown short attention spans even having film studios get rid of opening film credits, so it is refreshing these days when a film takes its time and leaves something to our imagination. I have written in several reviews the last few years that just because modern filmmakers can do something, doesn't mean they should. Modern CGI effects leave virtually nothing a movie maker can accomplish with enough imagination are computer work done to it; however, I still maintain the "Jaws" theory of the less you show the audience the more they have to used their own imaginations and therefore the film's "Babadook" becomes even more scary.
I loved the way the creature was shown mostly in shadow and not really given a good glimpse most of the way through. Even when it presents itself, you don't really get a good look at it and a lot of the scare is also through creepy, haunting sound effects.
I guess I will have to listen to my daughters from now on!
