Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A New Take On Classic Story Horror
Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark is a 2019 horror movie directed by Andre Ovredal, with screenplay adapted by Dan and Kevin Hageman, from a screen story by producer Guillermo Del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. It's based on the children's book series by Alvin Schwartz and produced by CBS Films, Entertainment One, 1212 Entertainment, Double Dare You Productions and Sean Daniel Company, and distributed by Lionsgate. The film stars Zoe Colletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush, Austin Zajur and Natalie Ganzhorn.
Three teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania, Stella (Zoe Colletti), Auggie (Gabriel Rush) and Chuck (Austin Zajur) incur the wrath of school bully Tommy Millner after playing a prank. They are chased by him and saved by a drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who let's them into his car. The group including Ramon explore a haunted house belonging to the Bellows, founders of the town, Inside of a secret room belonging to the Bellows' daughter Sarah, they find a book of scary stories written by her. After taking the book with them, they start to believe that there is more to the rumors about the house being haunted when stories in the book appear to happen in real life.
This movie was actually pretty good. I thought it could have been scarier but I think it was done well for being rated PG-13. Of course, I'm old enough to remember the books and they were really creepy, especially the illustrations. The movie was good at building suspense, and being creepy. I really liked the characters and felt that they were likeable and had a little something for everyone in how they were relatable. The character development could have been better for sure but the creature effects were spot on. The Monsters were definitely awesome and I like the way the made it an anthology movie without it actually being an anthology. It was pretty unique in that way and I can see how a sequel could work if it's financially successful enough to warrant one. I give this movie a 7/10.
Three teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania, Stella (Zoe Colletti), Auggie (Gabriel Rush) and Chuck (Austin Zajur) incur the wrath of school bully Tommy Millner after playing a prank. They are chased by him and saved by a drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who let's them into his car. The group including Ramon explore a haunted house belonging to the Bellows, founders of the town, Inside of a secret room belonging to the Bellows' daughter Sarah, they find a book of scary stories written by her. After taking the book with them, they start to believe that there is more to the rumors about the house being haunted when stories in the book appear to happen in real life.
This movie was actually pretty good. I thought it could have been scarier but I think it was done well for being rated PG-13. Of course, I'm old enough to remember the books and they were really creepy, especially the illustrations. The movie was good at building suspense, and being creepy. I really liked the characters and felt that they were likeable and had a little something for everyone in how they were relatable. The character development could have been better for sure but the creature effects were spot on. The Monsters were definitely awesome and I like the way the made it an anthology movie without it actually being an anthology. It was pretty unique in that way and I can see how a sequel could work if it's financially successful enough to warrant one. I give this movie a 7/10.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.