Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Charlie's Angels (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2020
A poor reboot
I had little hopes for this film when it was released at the cinema as the trailer looked awful, and I'm afraid to say the trailer was an accurate representation of the film itself.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream (1996) in Movies
Apr 22, 2020 (Updated May 9, 2020)
1996 was a time where slasher horror had become boring. The quality of countless sequels for certain franchises had dipped dramatically, and Wes Craven intended to give the whole thing a jump start with Scream. It's safe to say that he succeeded in that respect.
I was 8 years old when Scream release, and I remember the buzz around it. Other kids in my school would talk about how their older siblings had managed to rent a copy, and just how shocking it was, and in the years since it released, Scream has gone from that excitable buzz to a bonafide genre classic.
Obviously, the screenplays self awareness was a game changer. Characters constantly talking about horror movie 'rules' whilst doing the exact opposite, dialogue about upcoming sequels etc. Even the antagonist Ghostface has a slightly goofy look, and it's this tongue in cheek approach that was immediately imitated by others, although never quite as well.
That's not to say that Scream doesn't have it's fair share of horror. It's a bloody film for sure, and even though it's scares aren't major by today's standards, it's easy to see why it gained the clout it did.
The cast is headed up by Neve Campbell, as extremely likable final girl Sidney Prescott. Sidney is fleshed out enough for the viewer to really get inside, and isn't just there for eye candy. She is joined by the likes of Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy and Drew Barrymore in an all round decent cast.
Honestly though, I can't heap enough praise at Matthew Lillard for his absolute batshit crazy performance. Guy deserves more recognition for that commitment.
Scream isn't the best horror movie I've ever seen, but as I said above, it's a genre classic, and certainly changed the face of horror. A definite win for Wes Craven.
I was 8 years old when Scream release, and I remember the buzz around it. Other kids in my school would talk about how their older siblings had managed to rent a copy, and just how shocking it was, and in the years since it released, Scream has gone from that excitable buzz to a bonafide genre classic.
Obviously, the screenplays self awareness was a game changer. Characters constantly talking about horror movie 'rules' whilst doing the exact opposite, dialogue about upcoming sequels etc. Even the antagonist Ghostface has a slightly goofy look, and it's this tongue in cheek approach that was immediately imitated by others, although never quite as well.
That's not to say that Scream doesn't have it's fair share of horror. It's a bloody film for sure, and even though it's scares aren't major by today's standards, it's easy to see why it gained the clout it did.
The cast is headed up by Neve Campbell, as extremely likable final girl Sidney Prescott. Sidney is fleshed out enough for the viewer to really get inside, and isn't just there for eye candy. She is joined by the likes of Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy and Drew Barrymore in an all round decent cast.
Honestly though, I can't heap enough praise at Matthew Lillard for his absolute batshit crazy performance. Guy deserves more recognition for that commitment.
Scream isn't the best horror movie I've ever seen, but as I said above, it's a genre classic, and certainly changed the face of horror. A definite win for Wes Craven.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fever Pitch (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Spring is the time of year when past failures of the fall are forgotten by most baseball fans. While hope springs eternal every spring for most fans, Boston Red Sox fans have long had a love/hate relationship with their team. This is due in large part to the Red Sox’s ongoing and often bizarre ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for year after year, decade after decade, causing fans to claim that the team has been cursed ever since they traded Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees back in 1918. They have failed to win a championship since.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Jason Vale’s 7-Day Juice Challenge (7lbs in 7 Days)
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
THE WORLD’S No.1 JUICE DIET from JASON VALE. - No.1 Best-Selling App - No.1 Celebrity Juice...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Santa Clarita Diet - Season 3 in TV
Apr 7, 2019
I remember watching season 1 of Santa Clarita Diet and wondering after just a few episodes if it would ever make it to another season. Don't get me wrong, I loved the humour and the craziness of the show, but wasn’t sure how they would ever manage to stretch the idea out any further than that. Well, we're now onto season 3 of what has proven to be one of the funniest and most consistently well written shows around right now, with no signs of it slowing down anytime soon.
Season 2 ended on a bit of a cliffhanger with Sheila (Drew Barrymore) and Joel (Timothy Olyphant) getting caught with a re-animated corpse head out in the desert by their cop neighbour Anne (Natalie Morales). At the same time, daughter Abby (Liv Hewson) and their other neighbour’s son Eric (Skyler Gisondo) blowing up a fracking site. It’s the kind of wild predicament which, despite sounding crazy on paper, has become perfectly normal for this show.
Season 3 picks things up with Anne convinced that Sheila has been sent by god to help rid the world of evildoers, and as a church goer herself, she believes she must dedicate herself to helping Sheila. Meanwhile, the kids find themselves having to dodge an FBI agent who has been assigned to the fracking site case. And as for the re-animated head of Gary? Well, after positioning him back in their basement, the Hammonds decide to equip him with a headset and an Alexa so that he can work as an employee for their brand new realty company. Once again, something which sounds crazy on paper, but totally works on the show. And is also very funny as he turns out to be the perfect employee.
Season 3 also begins heavily expanding the world of the show, and the zombie mythology briefly introduced in previous seasons. A group called the Knights of Serbia are out to rid the world of the undead, and there is a mysterious stranger accompanied by a couple of thugs who also seem to have sinister motives for capturing zombies. As if all of that wasn’t enough, Sheila begins putting pressure on Joel to join her in becoming undead!
The pace of the show is what I love about the show. There’s always a family drama, or bigger issue to try and resolve meaning you never get time to be bored. The way that Sheila and Joel tackle everything like it’s something as mundane as changing a blown light bulb is one of the best things about the show and I particularly love Joel and his calmly frustrated comebacks and subtle one liners. Little things - like Joel discovering that there are separate kitchen drawers, with separate utensils for normal cooking and for more gross purposes - are just perfect.
Although this season isn’t quite as funny as last, there are some very funny new characters this time, most notably, Ron, who appeared last season but is newly undead in season 3. The whole season just breezes by, and once again ends on an exciting cliffhanger. Bring on season 4!
Season 2 ended on a bit of a cliffhanger with Sheila (Drew Barrymore) and Joel (Timothy Olyphant) getting caught with a re-animated corpse head out in the desert by their cop neighbour Anne (Natalie Morales). At the same time, daughter Abby (Liv Hewson) and their other neighbour’s son Eric (Skyler Gisondo) blowing up a fracking site. It’s the kind of wild predicament which, despite sounding crazy on paper, has become perfectly normal for this show.
Season 3 picks things up with Anne convinced that Sheila has been sent by god to help rid the world of evildoers, and as a church goer herself, she believes she must dedicate herself to helping Sheila. Meanwhile, the kids find themselves having to dodge an FBI agent who has been assigned to the fracking site case. And as for the re-animated head of Gary? Well, after positioning him back in their basement, the Hammonds decide to equip him with a headset and an Alexa so that he can work as an employee for their brand new realty company. Once again, something which sounds crazy on paper, but totally works on the show. And is also very funny as he turns out to be the perfect employee.
Season 3 also begins heavily expanding the world of the show, and the zombie mythology briefly introduced in previous seasons. A group called the Knights of Serbia are out to rid the world of the undead, and there is a mysterious stranger accompanied by a couple of thugs who also seem to have sinister motives for capturing zombies. As if all of that wasn’t enough, Sheila begins putting pressure on Joel to join her in becoming undead!
The pace of the show is what I love about the show. There’s always a family drama, or bigger issue to try and resolve meaning you never get time to be bored. The way that Sheila and Joel tackle everything like it’s something as mundane as changing a blown light bulb is one of the best things about the show and I particularly love Joel and his calmly frustrated comebacks and subtle one liners. Little things - like Joel discovering that there are separate kitchen drawers, with separate utensils for normal cooking and for more gross purposes - are just perfect.
Although this season isn’t quite as funny as last, there are some very funny new characters this time, most notably, Ron, who appeared last season but is newly undead in season 3. The whole season just breezes by, and once again ends on an exciting cliffhanger. Bring on season 4!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Horror films have been in a steady decline for the past few years with countless remakes and sequels to some of the most loved horror franchises. After an 8 year hiatus, Wes Craven resurrects the seemingly dead Scream series with some fantastic results. Scream 4 does for horror what the original did way back in 1996; it carves out a new direction for what has been a lifeless genre.
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 2 (1997) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney is back studying a college and over the events of the first film, she has moved on with a new boyfriend and new friends, that is until the ‘Stab’ movie is released. Sidney becomes the primary target of the killer and must use the experience with surviving a massacre before to make it out alive. Dewey still suffering the effects of his injuries in the first film, he is no longer a cop and with the events occurring he arrives back in Sidney’s life to try and help before the killer can get near her. Gale wrote the book on the murders, the one that the movie is based on, she is still trying to get a story, but does start to learn the errors in her way when she deals with other reporters. Cotton Weary does have a bigger part this time, as he is trying to piece his life back together after the wrongful accusations. Randy returns to give us the rules needed to make a sequel which an important part of the original. Of our new characters we get the new boyfriend in Derek who seems to be the best part of Sidney’s new life. Cici is the best friend at the college that is the more popular one at the college. This movie does have a larger cast than the first film which doesn’t always give the characters enough screen time.
Performances – Neve Campbell is still good in her role, she does make us believe she is the everyday student that is being tormented by the killer. Courteney Cox and David Arquette continue their good work in the supporting roles, where this film struggles to get the best of the of the supporting cast is by introducing too many characters, with Sarah Michelle Gellar seemingly filling the Drew Barrymore type role, where we expect to see her more in the film.
Story – The story picks up in a universe following the events of the first film where Hollywood makes movies on massacres, with this release we get to see the darker side of Hollywood taking advantage of real-life murders and how the innocent victims and survivor can be painted differently to cinematic purposes, well that seems to be the message I picked up on in this one. when it comes to the slasher side of things we get to watch the victims getting picked off by the killer, this does feel the same as before, while the references through this film focus on the idea of the sequels that Hollywood makes, and how they always story to improve on the last, though we do step away from the horror discussion this time.
Horror/Mystery – The horror side of the film comes from the ideas that people can take advantage of tragic stories for a bigger story, reflecting the events of the film, the mystery can keep us guessing to just who could be behind it this time around with plenty of potential suspects.
Settings – This time the film is set in a college that show us just where Sidney is now in her life which is important as she has moved on, but the event will always be part of her life.
Special Effects – The effects in the film once again show us how blood and gore can be achieved without going over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many supporting characters this time around.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that is well worth the watch, it shows progression in the horror genre with a sequel that does make sense to how an everyday person would be moving on with their life after the events in the first one, while still having the tragedy on their shoulder.
Overall: Good fun sequel.
Performances – Neve Campbell is still good in her role, she does make us believe she is the everyday student that is being tormented by the killer. Courteney Cox and David Arquette continue their good work in the supporting roles, where this film struggles to get the best of the of the supporting cast is by introducing too many characters, with Sarah Michelle Gellar seemingly filling the Drew Barrymore type role, where we expect to see her more in the film.
Story – The story picks up in a universe following the events of the first film where Hollywood makes movies on massacres, with this release we get to see the darker side of Hollywood taking advantage of real-life murders and how the innocent victims and survivor can be painted differently to cinematic purposes, well that seems to be the message I picked up on in this one. when it comes to the slasher side of things we get to watch the victims getting picked off by the killer, this does feel the same as before, while the references through this film focus on the idea of the sequels that Hollywood makes, and how they always story to improve on the last, though we do step away from the horror discussion this time.
Horror/Mystery – The horror side of the film comes from the ideas that people can take advantage of tragic stories for a bigger story, reflecting the events of the film, the mystery can keep us guessing to just who could be behind it this time around with plenty of potential suspects.
Settings – This time the film is set in a college that show us just where Sidney is now in her life which is important as she has moved on, but the event will always be part of her life.
Special Effects – The effects in the film once again show us how blood and gore can be achieved without going over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many supporting characters this time around.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that is well worth the watch, it shows progression in the horror genre with a sequel that does make sense to how an everyday person would be moving on with their life after the events in the first one, while still having the tragedy on their shoulder.
Overall: Good fun sequel.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜