Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Snake Eyes (1998) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019 (Updated Nov 7, 2019)
Murder Was The Case
Snake eyes- is good mystry thriller directed by Brian De Palma.
The Plot: Detective Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) has never played by the rules. When he attends a high-profile boxing match with his friend Navy Cmdr. Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise), as well as Defense Secretary Kirkland (Joel Fabiani), he witnesses a terrorist assassinate Kirkland. Despite a lockdown on the arena, key witness Julia Costello (Carla Gugino) escapes -- and Santoro begins to suspect Kirkland's death is part of a much larger conspiracy that involves boxing rivals and a beautiful stranger.
It was a good movie, very underrated.
The Plot: Detective Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) has never played by the rules. When he attends a high-profile boxing match with his friend Navy Cmdr. Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise), as well as Defense Secretary Kirkland (Joel Fabiani), he witnesses a terrorist assassinate Kirkland. Despite a lockdown on the arena, key witness Julia Costello (Carla Gugino) escapes -- and Santoro begins to suspect Kirkland's death is part of a much larger conspiracy that involves boxing rivals and a beautiful stranger.
It was a good movie, very underrated.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Son-in-Law (1993) in Movies
Dec 2, 2018
Meh
When college student Rebecca (Carla Gugino) brings her quirky dormmate Crawl (Pauly Shore) home for the holidays, she pretends they are engaged to thwart further advances from her high school sweetheart.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 9
Son-In-Law does quite a few things wrong, but it succeeds from having a solid list of fun characters that make the story a little more enjoyable. Crawl is hilarious. His crazy antics freak the rest of the cast out, but he also has an endearing way of ultimately wearing on you. He changed a lot of hearts and minds throughout the course of the film, particularly Rebecca who started out as small-minded and uptight, but eventually came to delight in the joys of life. Crawl’s attitude was infectious and ultimately bettered the family.
Cinematography: 0
I rarely give out 0’s unless there is nothing redeeming to add…and here you go. There is nothing special or particularly noteworthy about the way this film was shot. If given a little direction, a high schooler probably could have done the same job, if not better. Just lazy camera work. To say it was god-awful is an understatement.
Conflict: 6
Genre: 8
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Plot: 0
Resolution: 10
Overall: 60
When I was a kid, Pauly Shore could do no wrong in my eyes. I watch his films now as an adult and it’s nothing but cringeworthy. Son-In-Law isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen. In fact, a few tweaks might have made it a Folding Clothes movie. A handful of laughs wasn’t enough to stop the bleeding on my overall disappointment. Next.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 9
Son-In-Law does quite a few things wrong, but it succeeds from having a solid list of fun characters that make the story a little more enjoyable. Crawl is hilarious. His crazy antics freak the rest of the cast out, but he also has an endearing way of ultimately wearing on you. He changed a lot of hearts and minds throughout the course of the film, particularly Rebecca who started out as small-minded and uptight, but eventually came to delight in the joys of life. Crawl’s attitude was infectious and ultimately bettered the family.
Cinematography: 0
I rarely give out 0’s unless there is nothing redeeming to add…and here you go. There is nothing special or particularly noteworthy about the way this film was shot. If given a little direction, a high schooler probably could have done the same job, if not better. Just lazy camera work. To say it was god-awful is an understatement.
Conflict: 6
Genre: 8
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Plot: 0
Resolution: 10
Overall: 60
When I was a kid, Pauly Shore could do no wrong in my eyes. I watch his films now as an adult and it’s nothing but cringeworthy. Son-In-Law isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen. In fact, a few tweaks might have made it a Folding Clothes movie. A handful of laughs wasn’t enough to stop the bleeding on my overall disappointment. Next.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 16, 2018
Fantastic thoughtul and moving horror
The much-hyped horror series, telling the story of the Craine family who lived in "Hill House" during an ill-advised renovation project until the mother died in mysterious circumstances. The story moves between the present day, when the 5 Craine children are all grown up, and the past when they lived in Hill House.
The bulk of each episode is more focused on the drama of the family, and less focused on the horror aspects. But in each episode there are moments of utter, heart-stopping terror - either through true unexpected jump scares (there are few of these, but when they come, they are effective) or just complete bone-chilling creepiness.
As is so often the case, the viewers reaction to the ghostly interactions relies heavily on it happening to a child, really hitting hard at times.
I'm not a fan of horror films going all metaphysical and time-travelly (Paranormal Activity for one) but it is reasonably well handled here and isn't a forced point.
The cast is decent, if not outstanding, especially the younger child actors who are fantastic. And there's still something about Carla Gugino that makes me feel all funny.
I got a little distracted looking for the hidden ghosts throughout the series (there are over 40 of them, some are pretty much impossible to spot, others catch your eye after a few seconds and totally creep you out).
The series is somewhat toned down horror, there is virtually no gore and the jump-scares are few but effective, with much more focus on the drama. For me this was a refreshing twist on the genre and made it a much more enjoyable series than if it were all-out horror. A nice alternative to American Horror Story.
The bulk of each episode is more focused on the drama of the family, and less focused on the horror aspects. But in each episode there are moments of utter, heart-stopping terror - either through true unexpected jump scares (there are few of these, but when they come, they are effective) or just complete bone-chilling creepiness.
As is so often the case, the viewers reaction to the ghostly interactions relies heavily on it happening to a child, really hitting hard at times.
I'm not a fan of horror films going all metaphysical and time-travelly (Paranormal Activity for one) but it is reasonably well handled here and isn't a forced point.
The cast is decent, if not outstanding, especially the younger child actors who are fantastic. And there's still something about Carla Gugino that makes me feel all funny.
I got a little distracted looking for the hidden ghosts throughout the series (there are over 40 of them, some are pretty much impossible to spot, others catch your eye after a few seconds and totally creep you out).
The series is somewhat toned down horror, there is virtually no gore and the jump-scares are few but effective, with much more focus on the drama. For me this was a refreshing twist on the genre and made it a much more enjoyable series than if it were all-out horror. A nice alternative to American Horror Story.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
When I first heard about the Stephen King book called Gerald’s Game I was about 16 years old, and it scared the shit out of me! Just the concept and the idea of it happening to you. So I never read the book. In my mind, I had imagined the worst already and did not want to go there.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Oct 21, 2018
Good but not enough scares or horror
I’ve really struggled rating this show. On the one hand it is a truly fantastic and enthralling character study, but on the other it’s a horror show that has one major flaw; there’s not enough horror.
I’ll start with stating that I’ve never read the book or seen any other films about Hill House (except the 1999 film House on Haunted Hill which I’m pretty sure doesn’t count), so I went into this with a fairly open mind. From a character point of view, this show is truly marvellous. The development and the depth that has gone into each and every member of the Crain family is impressive and choosing to have each episode mainly based around one member of the family was a smart move. Each of these episodes goes into the back story of each character and helps explain how the became who they are, whilst also slowly revealing what happened at Hill House during their childhood. There are some great performances from the cast here, notably Carla Gugino and Michiel Huisman - I’d love to see more of him after this and his turn as Daario Naharis in Game of Thrones. It is this character driven story that kept me watching for the entire series, and also to find out what happened to the family. There was also some very good effects throughout.
The main issue I have with this show is that it’s meant to be a horror show, but for me there just wasn’t enough horror. Don’t get me wrong, there are a few creepy and slightly scary moments but sadly these were few and far between. Whilst I’m glad it didn’t go OTT on the jump scares, it needed a lot more horror. I love scary shows and films, so for me it was a huge disappointment that there wasn’t enough scares and I probably would’ve marked this a lot higher (a 9 maybe?) if they had just thrown a little more horror in.
I’ll start with stating that I’ve never read the book or seen any other films about Hill House (except the 1999 film House on Haunted Hill which I’m pretty sure doesn’t count), so I went into this with a fairly open mind. From a character point of view, this show is truly marvellous. The development and the depth that has gone into each and every member of the Crain family is impressive and choosing to have each episode mainly based around one member of the family was a smart move. Each of these episodes goes into the back story of each character and helps explain how the became who they are, whilst also slowly revealing what happened at Hill House during their childhood. There are some great performances from the cast here, notably Carla Gugino and Michiel Huisman - I’d love to see more of him after this and his turn as Daario Naharis in Game of Thrones. It is this character driven story that kept me watching for the entire series, and also to find out what happened to the family. There was also some very good effects throughout.
The main issue I have with this show is that it’s meant to be a horror show, but for me there just wasn’t enough horror. Don’t get me wrong, there are a few creepy and slightly scary moments but sadly these were few and far between. Whilst I’m glad it didn’t go OTT on the jump scares, it needed a lot more horror. I love scary shows and films, so for me it was a huge disappointment that there wasn’t enough scares and I probably would’ve marked this a lot higher (a 9 maybe?) if they had just thrown a little more horror in.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mr. Popper's Penguins (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A loosely based modern retelling of the beloved 1939 classic book by Florence and Richard Atwater, Mr. Popper Penguin’s tells the story of Tom Popper (Jim Carrey) a successful New York real estate developer, who is focused on becoming a partner in his company.
One day Tom finds out his father has passed away and left him a gift. To his surprise he inherits six penguins (Captain, Loudy, Bitey, Stinky, Lovey and Nimrod) from his father. With a serious case of resentment towards his father’s absent role in his life and the hindrance it puts on his lifestyle and work.
Mr. Popper tries every avenue he possibly can to get rid of the penguins. Once the flock is introduced to his children, he realizes he has no choice but to keep them. As the movie progresses on, we see Mr. Popper bonding with the penguins, teaching them how dance, going to the potty and also learning from them how to be a better person. He realizes that there are more important things in life than work, money and power. He begins spending more time with his children and tries to rekindle his relationship with his ex wife, Amanda (Carla Gugino) and less time focused on work.
I tend to see a common thread in some of Jim Carrey’s characters; he plays a guy who neglects the people he loves because of his work, for example, Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. In this movie, Carrey is back with his usual physical slapstick comedy, however Mr. Popper’s Penguins is definitely a toned down version of Carrey’s ever so hilarious Ace Ventura: Pet Detective role. You can’t help but laugh at the shenanigans and charm of these amazing penguins as well as Jim Carrey’s ability to find the humor in the most uncomfortable situations. If you can get past Mr. Popper’s assistant Pippi (Ophelia Lovibond) and her positively unpleasant practice of perpetually trying to use words that start with the letter P, there are some great laugh out loud moments the whole family will love.
One day Tom finds out his father has passed away and left him a gift. To his surprise he inherits six penguins (Captain, Loudy, Bitey, Stinky, Lovey and Nimrod) from his father. With a serious case of resentment towards his father’s absent role in his life and the hindrance it puts on his lifestyle and work.
Mr. Popper tries every avenue he possibly can to get rid of the penguins. Once the flock is introduced to his children, he realizes he has no choice but to keep them. As the movie progresses on, we see Mr. Popper bonding with the penguins, teaching them how dance, going to the potty and also learning from them how to be a better person. He realizes that there are more important things in life than work, money and power. He begins spending more time with his children and tries to rekindle his relationship with his ex wife, Amanda (Carla Gugino) and less time focused on work.
I tend to see a common thread in some of Jim Carrey’s characters; he plays a guy who neglects the people he loves because of his work, for example, Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. In this movie, Carrey is back with his usual physical slapstick comedy, however Mr. Popper’s Penguins is definitely a toned down version of Carrey’s ever so hilarious Ace Ventura: Pet Detective role. You can’t help but laugh at the shenanigans and charm of these amazing penguins as well as Jim Carrey’s ability to find the humor in the most uncomfortable situations. If you can get past Mr. Popper’s assistant Pippi (Ophelia Lovibond) and her positively unpleasant practice of perpetually trying to use words that start with the letter P, there are some great laugh out loud moments the whole family will love.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021 (Updated Jan 11, 2021)
I absolutely adored Sin City when it first released way back in 2005, and I still do to a point, albeit a little less than I used to.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Warner Brothers movie San Andreas stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as Chief Ray Gaines, Carla Gugino as Emma Gaines, Alexandra Daddario as their daughter Blake Gaines, Paul Giamatti as scientist Lawrence, Ioan Gruffudd as Daniel (Emma’s new love interest, as she & Chief Gaines are about to finalize their divorce), and Archie Panjabi as Serena, a reporter.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.