Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Christine Brown seems to have everything going well for her at this point in her life. She has a boyfriend who cares about her and loves her unconditionally, a great job at the bank as a loan officer with more than enough room for advancement in the company, and speaking of, it's between her and one other employee for the vacant assistant manager position. One day though, a strange looking gypsy shows up at Christine's bank asking for another extension before they foreclose on her home. After talking it over with her boss, it's up to Christine to decide on approving the loan and she comes to the conclusion of denying it. Mrs. Ganush begs and pleads with Christine, but Christine won't budge on her decision. After feeling like Christine wronged her by denying her pleas, Mrs. Ganush puts a curse on her and unless Christine can find some sort of loophole, she'll be going to hell in three days.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Starts slow...and then slows down...
Director/Writer Barry Jenkins scored an unexpected Oscar upset a few years ago when his film MOONLIGHT won the Best Picture Oscar (besting LA LA LAND), so it was with much anticipation that his follow-up film was coming out, just in time for Oscar consideration this year - and the Oscar Buzz was loud. So, I decided to check it out...
And...I'm glad I did, so I can warn you to stay away for IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK starts slow and then...slows down even more...and, if that isn't slow enough for you, kicks it down a couple of notches before finishing up on an even slower note.
Based on the best selling book by James Baldwin and telling the tale of a wrongfully incarcerated African-American man and his family, BEALE STREET is a languidly paced meditation on the constant living in fear of the African-American community in NYC in the early 1970's, and when "the system" fails this family, they are afraid of doing more for it might just make things worse.
The film starts out winningly enough when the 2 sets of parents of our young lovers get together to discuss the unexpected coming of a grandchild into this world. The 4 parents (Regina King, Coleman Domingo, Michael Beeach and Aunjanue Ellis) start out civilly, if coldly, but things quickly escalate into a crackling scene that explodes on-screen and I was looking forward to more of this foursome combating with each other for the rest of the film.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film focuses on the two young lovers (Kiki Layne and Stephan James) and these two are not charismatic or charming enough to hold the audience's attention during low-key scene after low-key scene.
Blame for this must go to Jenkins, who is making a very personal, intimate film, but - unlike something like ROMA - the world that this personal pastiche is thrown into is not interesting enough to hold interest nor are the pictures rich enough to look at, they are mostly washed out and boring.
Regina King is being touted as a "sure-fire" Academy Award nominee (and front runner to win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar) and I just don't see it. She was "fine" but nothing more in an underwritten role that was just as low-key and uninteresting as the rest of the film.
Give me the 4 parents feuding and we just might have an interesting film.
If you are looking for a low-key, moody film, check out ROMA, you can skip BEALE STREET.
Letter Grade: C
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
And...I'm glad I did, so I can warn you to stay away for IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK starts slow and then...slows down even more...and, if that isn't slow enough for you, kicks it down a couple of notches before finishing up on an even slower note.
Based on the best selling book by James Baldwin and telling the tale of a wrongfully incarcerated African-American man and his family, BEALE STREET is a languidly paced meditation on the constant living in fear of the African-American community in NYC in the early 1970's, and when "the system" fails this family, they are afraid of doing more for it might just make things worse.
The film starts out winningly enough when the 2 sets of parents of our young lovers get together to discuss the unexpected coming of a grandchild into this world. The 4 parents (Regina King, Coleman Domingo, Michael Beeach and Aunjanue Ellis) start out civilly, if coldly, but things quickly escalate into a crackling scene that explodes on-screen and I was looking forward to more of this foursome combating with each other for the rest of the film.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film focuses on the two young lovers (Kiki Layne and Stephan James) and these two are not charismatic or charming enough to hold the audience's attention during low-key scene after low-key scene.
Blame for this must go to Jenkins, who is making a very personal, intimate film, but - unlike something like ROMA - the world that this personal pastiche is thrown into is not interesting enough to hold interest nor are the pictures rich enough to look at, they are mostly washed out and boring.
Regina King is being touted as a "sure-fire" Academy Award nominee (and front runner to win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar) and I just don't see it. She was "fine" but nothing more in an underwritten role that was just as low-key and uninteresting as the rest of the film.
Give me the 4 parents feuding and we just might have an interesting film.
If you are looking for a low-key, moody film, check out ROMA, you can skip BEALE STREET.
Letter Grade: C
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
Joseph Rogers (13 KP) rated Stuck in Love (2013) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
I regularly looked at the message boards on the IMDB website, (when they were available!) and I couldn’t find a decent review in the message boards for this film so I thought I’d do one on here.
The premise is about a family of writers, a father, daughter and son dealing with love over the course of a year. The father is a divorcee and still has conflicting feelings for his ex-wife who he has been apart from for 3 years. It’s a story about finding love and holding onto it, i guess another theme could be to not rush head on into love for fear of getting hurt and doing this by learning from personal experience (for instance the daughter and son learning from their parents).
This film has an amazing cast (amazing as in great performances, it’s not exactly an A-list cast which i think would ruin it due to the genre of the film) and uses the actors to the absolute best of it’s abilities.
One of the best performances in this movie is probably Greg Kinnear as he strikes the balance between a good and a bad father through no fault of his own as he’s caught up in the complexities of his own love life. Which is another great thing about this film, as the children are supposed to be between 17-19 years old, they actually go through the same problems as the adults, thus making everyone in this film equal and shows that no matter who you are or what you’re background is, everyone gets hurt by love, and more or less everyone reacts the same.
If I had one problem with this film it’s that it could have been about 20-30 minutes longer as it’s one of those films where you want to know more back story of the characters, particularly Greg Kinnear’s.
But as I say, this film couldn’t have used the actors better for this genre. To compliment the acting and great story the soundtrack is one of the best I’ve heard for a long time. The first track we hear is “Home – Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros” which is an amazing, comforting, happy, melancholic song in of itself, but it opens the film with a huge bang of presumptions that enter your mind of where this film could lead you.
It leads you exactly where you want it to.
There will be some things I’ve left out purposefully as I hate any reviews or trailers that just show you all the best bits and you go to see the movie and find that they really were the ONLY good bits. So watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is!
The premise is about a family of writers, a father, daughter and son dealing with love over the course of a year. The father is a divorcee and still has conflicting feelings for his ex-wife who he has been apart from for 3 years. It’s a story about finding love and holding onto it, i guess another theme could be to not rush head on into love for fear of getting hurt and doing this by learning from personal experience (for instance the daughter and son learning from their parents).
This film has an amazing cast (amazing as in great performances, it’s not exactly an A-list cast which i think would ruin it due to the genre of the film) and uses the actors to the absolute best of it’s abilities.
One of the best performances in this movie is probably Greg Kinnear as he strikes the balance between a good and a bad father through no fault of his own as he’s caught up in the complexities of his own love life. Which is another great thing about this film, as the children are supposed to be between 17-19 years old, they actually go through the same problems as the adults, thus making everyone in this film equal and shows that no matter who you are or what you’re background is, everyone gets hurt by love, and more or less everyone reacts the same.
If I had one problem with this film it’s that it could have been about 20-30 minutes longer as it’s one of those films where you want to know more back story of the characters, particularly Greg Kinnear’s.
But as I say, this film couldn’t have used the actors better for this genre. To compliment the acting and great story the soundtrack is one of the best I’ve heard for a long time. The first track we hear is “Home – Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros” which is an amazing, comforting, happy, melancholic song in of itself, but it opens the film with a huge bang of presumptions that enter your mind of where this film could lead you.
It leads you exactly where you want it to.
There will be some things I’ve left out purposefully as I hate any reviews or trailers that just show you all the best bits and you go to see the movie and find that they really were the ONLY good bits. So watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is!
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated No Escape (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure…I am not a fan of Owen Wilson. In fact, I have down right loathed him since I first saw him in Armageddon. In my opinion, he always plays an annoying, somewhat exaggerated and not very funny character. To make things worse, No Escape is a non-comedy, non-quirky, straight man Owen Wilson film. Seems like a terrible idea. Still, the trailer intrigued me because I wanted to see if Wilson had any range to be a “normal action” character for once or would he continue to live up to my low expectations of him.
Surprisingly, I enjoyed him in this performance greatly. Wilson plays a father who uproots his wife Annie (Lake Bell) and their two little girls and moves them to Southeast Asia to work on a project to bring clean drinking water to the country and provide a better life for his family. However shortly after arrival, the family finds themselves in the middle of a violent political uprising they do not understand nor have any idea why it is happening and must somehow find sanctuary and escape this foreign city where Americans are being executed on sight. The film is intense. As soon as the coup begins, we are taken on a ride of constant tension and emotion, broken up with quiet moments where Wilson uses “dad humor” to comfort his family. Wilson shines in these moments because his “lame Dad humor” is not only believable, but his demeanor throughout the film is realistic and loving. His chemistry with his cast mates is stellar as the family all deliver solid performances and you can believe they are an actual family.
As they are moving through the city they come across a familiar face in Pierce Brosnan who plays some kind of mercenary ex-agent type. Brosnan’s screen time is short but he steals every scene he is in. He also gives an explanation, though simple, of what is going on and how the family can find safety. Critics of this film may fault it for glossing over a real world issue of western colonialism and no attempt to humanize the plight of the locals, however for me at least, this film isn’t trying to tell a giant story, but rather a far simpler one which is about family. Additionally, the trailers for this film present it as more of an action film, which it is not.
In the end we are left with a frightening atmosphere where we constantly might ask ourselves what we would do in that situation. The strength of this film is the family dynamic and the strong performances that give them life. Though the film mostly ignores a real world issue, it delivers a thrilling fast paced ride from almost start to finish.
Surprisingly, I enjoyed him in this performance greatly. Wilson plays a father who uproots his wife Annie (Lake Bell) and their two little girls and moves them to Southeast Asia to work on a project to bring clean drinking water to the country and provide a better life for his family. However shortly after arrival, the family finds themselves in the middle of a violent political uprising they do not understand nor have any idea why it is happening and must somehow find sanctuary and escape this foreign city where Americans are being executed on sight. The film is intense. As soon as the coup begins, we are taken on a ride of constant tension and emotion, broken up with quiet moments where Wilson uses “dad humor” to comfort his family. Wilson shines in these moments because his “lame Dad humor” is not only believable, but his demeanor throughout the film is realistic and loving. His chemistry with his cast mates is stellar as the family all deliver solid performances and you can believe they are an actual family.
As they are moving through the city they come across a familiar face in Pierce Brosnan who plays some kind of mercenary ex-agent type. Brosnan’s screen time is short but he steals every scene he is in. He also gives an explanation, though simple, of what is going on and how the family can find safety. Critics of this film may fault it for glossing over a real world issue of western colonialism and no attempt to humanize the plight of the locals, however for me at least, this film isn’t trying to tell a giant story, but rather a far simpler one which is about family. Additionally, the trailers for this film present it as more of an action film, which it is not.
In the end we are left with a frightening atmosphere where we constantly might ask ourselves what we would do in that situation. The strength of this film is the family dynamic and the strong performances that give them life. Though the film mostly ignores a real world issue, it delivers a thrilling fast paced ride from almost start to finish.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 18, 2020)
Tangled
I love the american verison of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". And even the Swedish series was good. But i like the american verison better. So what about this film, its dull. It cant live up to the pervious film/series. I give Clarie Foy credit she was good as Lisbeth, but both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara were both excellent as Lisbeth and Clarie was a step down from them. She was the only good part of this film. The plot, the supporting charcters, the twist, the action were all dull and cant live up to the pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021
Suffers from Sequel-itis
If you ever heard of the term “Sequel-itis” and wondered what a good example of film suffering from this malady would be, look no further than VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE.
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Finch (2021) in Movies
Nov 18, 2021
Very Effective
There are times when there is a “Perfect Storm” of film material, performance, mood, style and execution of said material and the headspace that I am in when I sit down to view the movie that elevates a film viewing experience above the norm.
Such was my experience when I sat down and watched the Tom Hanks Post-Apocalyptic film FINCH on AppleTV+. On paper, it looks like a run-of-the-mill “last few survivors on Earth struggle to remain alive” film, but - in my experience - it was much better than that.
Starring Tom Hanks as loner scientist Finch, who is scraping by in the remains of St. Louis with a dog and 2 robot helpers - robots of his own creation. When conditions in St. Louis worsen, Finch must pack up (with his 3 companions in tow) and head to a place where he thinks that life might be better - San Francisco.
Pretty standard “road movie” stuff, right? But in the hands of an Actor like Hanks, Emmy Winning GAME OF THRONES Director Miguel Sapochnik, a script by Craig Luck and Ivor Powell that digs into the humanity of Finch (and the situation) and some top-notch Computer animation of the Robots (especially “Jeff” voiced by Caleb Landry Jones), this film elevates itself above the norm.
There are not too many actors who could hold the attention of an audience for 2 hours speaking with 2 robots and a dog, but Hanks manages to do this - and do this very well. He brings his basic decency to the fore and makes us root for him from the start.
The surprise for me was the voice work of Caleb Landry Jones (GET OUT) who matches Hanks beat for beat and brings the same level of decency to his character. It is a testament to Jones’ work in a Motion Capture suit - and the “mo-cap” (Supervised by Scott Stokdyk) that makes the audience see and feel emotions on the face of the robot that just aren’t there. It’s that good.
Director Sapochnik really moves the film at the correct pace as he stops for the humanity, but doesn’t dwell on it too long - and, thus, avoids making the film too sentimental and mawkish. It is a delicate balancing act that this film walks very well.
Probably the biggest movie-going surprise of the year for me. A film that, at this point, will end up in my Top 10 of 2021.
Yes, I am as surprised as you are by this.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such was my experience when I sat down and watched the Tom Hanks Post-Apocalyptic film FINCH on AppleTV+. On paper, it looks like a run-of-the-mill “last few survivors on Earth struggle to remain alive” film, but - in my experience - it was much better than that.
Starring Tom Hanks as loner scientist Finch, who is scraping by in the remains of St. Louis with a dog and 2 robot helpers - robots of his own creation. When conditions in St. Louis worsen, Finch must pack up (with his 3 companions in tow) and head to a place where he thinks that life might be better - San Francisco.
Pretty standard “road movie” stuff, right? But in the hands of an Actor like Hanks, Emmy Winning GAME OF THRONES Director Miguel Sapochnik, a script by Craig Luck and Ivor Powell that digs into the humanity of Finch (and the situation) and some top-notch Computer animation of the Robots (especially “Jeff” voiced by Caleb Landry Jones), this film elevates itself above the norm.
There are not too many actors who could hold the attention of an audience for 2 hours speaking with 2 robots and a dog, but Hanks manages to do this - and do this very well. He brings his basic decency to the fore and makes us root for him from the start.
The surprise for me was the voice work of Caleb Landry Jones (GET OUT) who matches Hanks beat for beat and brings the same level of decency to his character. It is a testament to Jones’ work in a Motion Capture suit - and the “mo-cap” (Supervised by Scott Stokdyk) that makes the audience see and feel emotions on the face of the robot that just aren’t there. It’s that good.
Director Sapochnik really moves the film at the correct pace as he stops for the humanity, but doesn’t dwell on it too long - and, thus, avoids making the film too sentimental and mawkish. It is a delicate balancing act that this film walks very well.
Probably the biggest movie-going surprise of the year for me. A film that, at this point, will end up in my Top 10 of 2021.
Yes, I am as surprised as you are by this.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)