Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight of Cups (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’ll just come out and say it … This movie for all it’s grandeur with its ensemble cast and it’s amazing photographic work and direction is something that should be shown at film festivals and in art house movie theaters and NOT your mainstream chain theaters. Someplace where you can order a meal and perhaps a glass of wine or a local ale. Why? If the movie has Christian Bale in its cast you know there’s going to be drama involved regardless of whether or not the movie itself is dramatic. THIS particular film is a drama that could be compared to something written by Shakespeare.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Finest Hours (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Finest Hours tells the story of four men who, in February of 1952, undertook one of the most daring rescue attempts in the history of the Unites States Coast Guard. A tanker, the SS Pendleton, is caught in a storm off the coast of New England and is ripped in half, leaving more than 30 sailors adrift and sinking. While Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) leads an impossible rescue in a lifeboat designed to hold only 12, his fiancée, Miriam (Holliday Grainger), struggles to come to terms with what it means to be the wife of a man who has to willingly risk his life for others.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid
Seth Brundle is his own version of Dr Frankenstein. Instead of reanimating dead issue, his desire is to teleport flesh from one "telepod" to another.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2019
Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/ Captain America
RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron man
Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes
Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-man
Chadwick Boseman as Black panther/Tchalla (1 more)
The Airport fight scene
The climatic three-way battle
Zemo is a fantastic villian brilliantly played by Daniel Bruhl
Feels like a Captain America movie
Giant-Man is awesome,so is Paul Rudd
Mission Report, December 16, 1991
"Captain America: Civil War" is not only the best "Captain America" movie yet, but it may just be at the very top of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, due to it's emotionally satisfying themes. That may seem like extremely high praise, so I will explain why I believe that to be true, as well as why I think this is the most mature Marvel film to this point. Loosely following the events of both "Captain America: The Winter Solider" and "Avengers: Age of Ultron," while still harking back to previous films from this universe, this 13th installment in the ever growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, follows the team on different paths as they are once again pulled together.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bornless Ones (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Take 4 Outrageously good looking guys and gals, A 5th guy with some sort of life challenging disease… Move them into a new out of the way house with a secret history, not to far from an Institution, Have them desecrate and destroy what look to be supernatural symbols boarding up the windows and you have Bornless Ones… Oh and there is scary possession, Craziness and a fair bit of really well done gore, Seriously well done Gore!!!
Now that’s not to say that this movie lacks originality in any way because it really does not. Ok we may have seen the creepy house in the middle of nowhere that scares the crap out of its occupants before, but can we really ever get too much of that. The difference I found was that Bornless Ones is in many ways a spiritual cousin to movies like Evil Dead and in many ways actually betters what has come before in its Genre. One of those ways is the performance our cast put in.
Emily (Margaret Judson – The Newsroom) has decided that she cant look after her Cerebal Palsy suffering brother Zach (Micheal Johnston – MTV’s Teen Wolf) anymore, she is going to move him to an institution. However fearing he is going to be too far away from her, Emily and her boyfriend Jesse (Devin Goodsell) buy a house nearby, the house has a past. Emily and Jesse are accompanied by there friends Woodrow (Mark Furze – Home and Away, Underbelly) and Michelle (Bobby T) to help them move in. That’s when the movie cranks it up to 11 and everything goes nuts as our core characters are taken hold of by a paranormal force one by one and must fight for survival.
My horror kick has absolutely continued into 2017 and Bornless Ones was a fantastic place to start. Its a hell of a lot more Evil Dead than the Evil Dead Remake which sucked and this movie really had me in from the start. It does help that it wastes no time at all, no sooner had they all moved in and the shenanigans began.
Alexander Babaev has done a great job on Directing and Writing with this movie and while it falls into the Indie bracket of movies it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. The acting from our core cast is better than you might expect, infact they all smash it out of the park. The acting once possession has taken hold is creepy as shit and utterly compelling.
Bornless Ones is definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of this genre, it is a lot better than most of the possession movies coming out these days. Give it a try…
Now that’s not to say that this movie lacks originality in any way because it really does not. Ok we may have seen the creepy house in the middle of nowhere that scares the crap out of its occupants before, but can we really ever get too much of that. The difference I found was that Bornless Ones is in many ways a spiritual cousin to movies like Evil Dead and in many ways actually betters what has come before in its Genre. One of those ways is the performance our cast put in.
Emily (Margaret Judson – The Newsroom) has decided that she cant look after her Cerebal Palsy suffering brother Zach (Micheal Johnston – MTV’s Teen Wolf) anymore, she is going to move him to an institution. However fearing he is going to be too far away from her, Emily and her boyfriend Jesse (Devin Goodsell) buy a house nearby, the house has a past. Emily and Jesse are accompanied by there friends Woodrow (Mark Furze – Home and Away, Underbelly) and Michelle (Bobby T) to help them move in. That’s when the movie cranks it up to 11 and everything goes nuts as our core characters are taken hold of by a paranormal force one by one and must fight for survival.
My horror kick has absolutely continued into 2017 and Bornless Ones was a fantastic place to start. Its a hell of a lot more Evil Dead than the Evil Dead Remake which sucked and this movie really had me in from the start. It does help that it wastes no time at all, no sooner had they all moved in and the shenanigans began.
Alexander Babaev has done a great job on Directing and Writing with this movie and while it falls into the Indie bracket of movies it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. The acting from our core cast is better than you might expect, infact they all smash it out of the park. The acting once possession has taken hold is creepy as shit and utterly compelling.
Bornless Ones is definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of this genre, it is a lot better than most of the possession movies coming out these days. Give it a try…
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.