Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
It doesn’t take much to remember that Jonah Hill (writer and director) had already acted in one of the greatest coming-of-age movies at the age of 24. A cursory glance at Superbad shows it to be a hilarious and quotable movie. But a deeper look at the film reveals the true story. Two high school friends (Hill and Michael Cera) who realize they are drifting apart because of incoming adulthood and that they are powerless to stop it. Keeping that in mind, Hill was quoted during the production of Mid 90s as saying that coming-of-age films are cliché and what he really wanted was to make a skateboarding movie that avoided the 80s “cowabunga” tropes. The result of that focus is Mid 90s.
Sunny Suljic plays 13-year-old Stevie, a quiet and often confused boy looking to escape his bleak and abusive home life by connecting with a group of local skater kids. While Suljic absolutely steals the show with his superb acting, his (mostly no name) costars deserve massive kudos for this endeavor as well. Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea, Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri) plays Stevie’s abusive older brother Ian. Though he is quickly established in the opening shot as the antagonist, his character arc throughout the film is one of the greatest and you find yourself soon empathetic to his plight nearly as much as Stevie’s. The skater gang is comprised of Ray (Na-kel Smith), Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt), 4th Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) and Ruben (Gio Galicia). These four seem apathetically content to take Stevie under their wing after he begins hanging out at their skate shop. During this time they expose Stevie to a world of drinking, smoking, drugs and sex as well as a complex set of personalities that Stevie struggles to understand but tries desperately to emulate. This reverence begins to lead him down a path that worry not only his mother and brother, but also occasionally members of his new social group. The actors playing his newfound friends all bring a beautiful authenticity to their roles. They certainly aren’t playing “themselves”, but their personalities don’t feel concocted or forced.
The original score for the film was done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross as well as a selection of 1990s Hip Hop. And while the original music by Reznor and Ross accents the film perfectly, the 90s throwback songs struggle to do more than remind the viewer of the period and provide the sporadic nostalgia kick. In fact, most of the 90s nostalgia does little to add to the film. Thus, while the opportunity was there to give us a solid examination and social commentary on 1990s culture, Hill seems to fall short of that concept and instead uses the references as a gimmick to tie in smaller plot points.
In addition to the music, there are a few other elements that add to the hipster vintage nature of the film. It was shot entirely on 16mm and is presented in square 1:1 ratio. While this is certainly an unusual choice as more movies are shifted to wide screen formats and square televisions are no longer produced, it pushes the film closer towards the verité genre that is necessary to keep it within the indie style guide.
Mid 90s, along with Eighth Grade have positioned A24 studios in a fantastic place. They’ve demonstrated their willingness to get behind first time writer/directors and the results have been impressive to say the least. If they can remain on this type of pace I could see how the Academy would take notice come awards season.
So despite his view that they are cliché, Jonah Hill has once again created a poignant and powerful coming-of-age movie and he’s managed to wrap it into just enough skateboarding reality to give us the love letter he was hoping to produce. The film is not without its faults, but it’s not one you should miss.
Sunny Suljic plays 13-year-old Stevie, a quiet and often confused boy looking to escape his bleak and abusive home life by connecting with a group of local skater kids. While Suljic absolutely steals the show with his superb acting, his (mostly no name) costars deserve massive kudos for this endeavor as well. Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea, Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri) plays Stevie’s abusive older brother Ian. Though he is quickly established in the opening shot as the antagonist, his character arc throughout the film is one of the greatest and you find yourself soon empathetic to his plight nearly as much as Stevie’s. The skater gang is comprised of Ray (Na-kel Smith), Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt), 4th Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) and Ruben (Gio Galicia). These four seem apathetically content to take Stevie under their wing after he begins hanging out at their skate shop. During this time they expose Stevie to a world of drinking, smoking, drugs and sex as well as a complex set of personalities that Stevie struggles to understand but tries desperately to emulate. This reverence begins to lead him down a path that worry not only his mother and brother, but also occasionally members of his new social group. The actors playing his newfound friends all bring a beautiful authenticity to their roles. They certainly aren’t playing “themselves”, but their personalities don’t feel concocted or forced.
The original score for the film was done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross as well as a selection of 1990s Hip Hop. And while the original music by Reznor and Ross accents the film perfectly, the 90s throwback songs struggle to do more than remind the viewer of the period and provide the sporadic nostalgia kick. In fact, most of the 90s nostalgia does little to add to the film. Thus, while the opportunity was there to give us a solid examination and social commentary on 1990s culture, Hill seems to fall short of that concept and instead uses the references as a gimmick to tie in smaller plot points.
In addition to the music, there are a few other elements that add to the hipster vintage nature of the film. It was shot entirely on 16mm and is presented in square 1:1 ratio. While this is certainly an unusual choice as more movies are shifted to wide screen formats and square televisions are no longer produced, it pushes the film closer towards the verité genre that is necessary to keep it within the indie style guide.
Mid 90s, along with Eighth Grade have positioned A24 studios in a fantastic place. They’ve demonstrated their willingness to get behind first time writer/directors and the results have been impressive to say the least. If they can remain on this type of pace I could see how the Academy would take notice come awards season.
So despite his view that they are cliché, Jonah Hill has once again created a poignant and powerful coming-of-age movie and he’s managed to wrap it into just enough skateboarding reality to give us the love letter he was hoping to produce. The film is not without its faults, but it’s not one you should miss.
Buddies, Bullies, and Baseball
6.0
Rate It
Book
When Bullies Act Out, It’s Time for Buddies and Baseball A cloud hangs over Jack as he begins...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols by The Sex Pistols in Music
Nov 2, 2017
The ultimate reset switch on the musical chart machine
This album changed everything and brought rock ‘n roll music back down to ground level where it belongs. It perfectly captured the mindset of a generation and it was the turning point that was so badly needed at that point in musical history. These four lads were saying exactly what they meant and we could hear their pain and frustration through Lydon’s voice as he screamed down the microphone at us. This album is gripping from start to finish and full of strikingly relevant lyrics even today. Without Never Mind The Bollocks, you can forget Oasis or Nirvana or Green Day or any punk band to come after ’77 for that matter. This album had to happen as it totally changed the course of rock ‘n roll history for the better and gave us all what we wanted again. This band is as important to rock ‘n roll music and British culture as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and they only ever released the one album, that is how important this record is. This album affected the style of an entire generation, it affected the politicians and it gave the how the majority of the country was feeling a united voice. The Tory government and the Royal Family may be scum, but it is hard to argue the fact that they have inspired some of the best music over the last 50 years. This album defines what it means to be young and pissed off and overlooked by the older generations who hold the power. It is an attack launched at anyone who has ever looked down their nose at anyone else. It is the quintessential lesson in how to compose a legendary rock n’ roll album and it reminded the world that you don’t need a bunch of overcomplicated instrumentals or 16 minute long interludes to make a great record, all you need is a few instruments, some raw talent and a determination to tell people how it really is. The Pistols wear their hearts on their sleeve in this record, both through their instruments and their lyrics, there is so much feeling and passion and genuine dissatisfaction on this record, yet it is also so careless and spur of the moment and that combination results in one of the greatest albums of the last half century in my opinion.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftershock (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftershock starts as Gringo (Roth), Ariel (Levy) and Pollo (Martinez) travelling around Chile, they party over all night where they meet three girls Monica (Osvart), Irina (Yarovenko) and Kylie (Izzo). Going for one last party the six new friends find themselves in the middle of an earthquake, one seriously injured and an impending tsunami heading towards them.
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Thor-oughly entertaining.
Thor has always come across as the weaker of the Marvel film series’. The first film was well made, but never really demanded a repeat watch. The second, whilst not as bad as some people will attest, still felt more like a stop gap filler. You can’t blame the casting for the feeling of nonchalance that the films, so far, have delivered. Hemsworth is great in the role, and the support cast have always given their all, from Hiddleston as Loki, to Anthony Hopkins as Odin. But the stories have just felt superfluous, generic, and lacking in anything fantastical or mystical. In addition they have made the same error that DC made when they adapted Green Lantern – they spent too much time on Earth! You see, there are enough super-hero films that focus on a threat to Earth, so even though you could argue that it is faithful to the comics to have Thor defending Midgard against some mythical enemy, it has the unfortunate effect of making it seem just a little too…familiar. Wisely the decision was made for this third film to break away from Midgard, and go ‘cosmic’ with the story – and the end result is a damn sight better as a result.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Comments on revenge are best kept on the screen.
I'd completely forgotten the furore about Liam Neeson's comments back last February during the press-tour preceding the film's release. In discussing the destructive feelings of revenge experienced by his character, Nels Coxman, Neeson revealed something he did 40 years ago: after the rape of a friend by "a black man", Neeson went out on the streets to find another "black man" and do them harm. (As a fellow Ballymena-born man, David Moody (from the "Mark and Dave" blog) has an interesting theory about this... that it was not a "rascist" statement in the true sense, but something else entirely. See here - ).
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
