Search
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Why so serious?
This is the first film in a long time that I've come out of feeling very divided, and it's taken a rather lengthy internal debate on the way home to figure out how I really feel about it.
This starts off slow, very slow and I was worried that I was going to get very bored very quickly. However Joaquin Phoenix's performance is phenomenal and although he is disturbingly thin for this, he's brilliant to watch, even considering the subject matter. If it wasn't for the Gotham setting and mention of the Wayne's, this wouldn't feel like a DC superhero/villain film and this is my main criticism. I love how dark and gritty Joker is and that this is mainly a study about mental health, but I do wish it had a little more in it to tie it to it's source material. Even just a nod to his most well known origin story as seen in some of the other films would've made this even better. I've heard a lot of people say this is uncomfortable viewing, but I didnt see that myself. It's just a stark portrayal of mental health and it does very well in this respect. The violence is sparse yet fits well - I didn't think it was overdone or excessive. And the final act with the talk show and ending was sheer brilliance and really brought Joker towards the character we know and love. It's this final part that sold this film for me, and I'm interested to see how they fit this into the rest of the DC universe, and if we start seeing more superhero films that are much darker and realistic. This is definitely a good example to follow!
This starts off slow, very slow and I was worried that I was going to get very bored very quickly. However Joaquin Phoenix's performance is phenomenal and although he is disturbingly thin for this, he's brilliant to watch, even considering the subject matter. If it wasn't for the Gotham setting and mention of the Wayne's, this wouldn't feel like a DC superhero/villain film and this is my main criticism. I love how dark and gritty Joker is and that this is mainly a study about mental health, but I do wish it had a little more in it to tie it to it's source material. Even just a nod to his most well known origin story as seen in some of the other films would've made this even better. I've heard a lot of people say this is uncomfortable viewing, but I didnt see that myself. It's just a stark portrayal of mental health and it does very well in this respect. The violence is sparse yet fits well - I didn't think it was overdone or excessive. And the final act with the talk show and ending was sheer brilliance and really brought Joker towards the character we know and love. It's this final part that sold this film for me, and I'm interested to see how they fit this into the rest of the DC universe, and if we start seeing more superhero films that are much darker and realistic. This is definitely a good example to follow!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Wow. Just wow. It feels like there are no words that could describe how great Guardians of the Galaxy is. This is the first movie in a while where I walked in with high expectations, and yet they still managed to exceed them. OK. Enough gushing. Time to get to the dirt.
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
The Bling Ring: How a Gang of Fame-Obsessed Teens Ripped off Hollywood and Shocked the World
Book
Published alongside the 2013 film The Bling Ring, directed by Sofia Coppola and starring Emma...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Man Down (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
This Dito Montiel (Fighting, The Son of No One) directed film is a look at mental health and how soldiers returning from war can be affected by the tragedy of war and life.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Art of Deception (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Joseph Markham has been working for the CIA on a top-secret mind control project, it has reached the final stages with the final test being a success. He along with his wife soon become targets for the CIA who don’t want loose ends, which means Joseph will show his skills and training that his boss never knew he had, he will uses his training to stay alive and plan to expose the truth to the world. Valentina is the wife of Joseph, she is just as deadly, despite being held captive, she knows how the stay alive. Roland Smith is the project leader that wants to tie up any loose ends involved in the project, he doesn’t want anybody being able to spill the plans and puts all his effort into killing the Markham’s.
Performances – Richard Ryan in the leading role and on directing duties handles everything very well, with he combat scenes, showing his character’s deadly ability along with using the brains to stay ahead of the game. Jackie Nova brings us the feisty character that is the highlight of her screen time. Leon van Waas makes for the fun over the top villain through the film.
Story – The story here follows a couple that become targets of the CIA after their work for them, where they show their skills to survive and expose the truth about the project. This does follow everything we know from a late night action story, we have a skilled killer that must come out of his retired decision to protect himself, his wife and the world, when the moment comes for him to shine. We do have a villain that does following everything we are expecting to see with his evil plan that does need to be stopped. We can easily sit back and relax through this film, with the feisty dialogue being used through the film too.
Action – The action in the film is easy to watch, we deal with different fight scenes, with different fighting techniques being used to show skills behind the characters.
Settings – The film does keep the settings simple, we do have the CIA offices which sees the tight corridors when it comes to dealing with the fights and the secret locations where kidnapped people will be held.
Scene of the Movie – The plan to save the day.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more combat sequences from Valentina.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun late night action film that could be enjoyed by all the action junkies, it keeps most things simple, without being down as plain.
Overall: Fun Action Film.
Performances – Richard Ryan in the leading role and on directing duties handles everything very well, with he combat scenes, showing his character’s deadly ability along with using the brains to stay ahead of the game. Jackie Nova brings us the feisty character that is the highlight of her screen time. Leon van Waas makes for the fun over the top villain through the film.
Story – The story here follows a couple that become targets of the CIA after their work for them, where they show their skills to survive and expose the truth about the project. This does follow everything we know from a late night action story, we have a skilled killer that must come out of his retired decision to protect himself, his wife and the world, when the moment comes for him to shine. We do have a villain that does following everything we are expecting to see with his evil plan that does need to be stopped. We can easily sit back and relax through this film, with the feisty dialogue being used through the film too.
Action – The action in the film is easy to watch, we deal with different fight scenes, with different fighting techniques being used to show skills behind the characters.
Settings – The film does keep the settings simple, we do have the CIA offices which sees the tight corridors when it comes to dealing with the fights and the secret locations where kidnapped people will be held.
Scene of the Movie – The plan to save the day.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more combat sequences from Valentina.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun late night action film that could be enjoyed by all the action junkies, it keeps most things simple, without being down as plain.
Overall: Fun Action Film.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
It's a Sin
1987 Luton, UK: New wave rules the radio, Margaret Thatcher controls the country which is leading to closed factories and people losing their jobs, and Pakistanis are moving into neighbors which the "white" majority resents (when people are losing their jobs, it is easier to blame the "others" moving in instead of the government whose policies have led to these losses). But I digress. Ravi is trapped between two cultures, his Pakistani family and the culture he grows up in in Luton. One day at his school, he meets a Sikh student who gives him two cassettes by Bruce Springsteen and he meets a writing teacher who encourages him to write what he knows. Like the culture clash in his soul, his heart is consumed by these Springsteen songs and expressing his feelings through writing. As is wont in these films, his parents and town learn to accept him and his obvious talent.
Two things struck me about the film. The first is the costume for the father. With the exception of the wedding party which I will discuss in my second, the father is dressed in a dress shirt, tie, and slacks, sometimes a sportcoat. This is the traditional outfit of a 1st generation immigrant. Even though he works in a factory manufacturing cars, he still goes to work or out in public dressed like a successful businessman/financial advisor. There is a belief that in order to achieve success, you must dress as though you have already attained that success. The second is the connection to Bend It Like Beckham, Chadha's previous film, which had a lot more success in the US. There is the best friend's parent who accepts the protagonist quicker than their own. But I am talking about the wedding party scene. In both films, the family is having a wedding party and the protagonist has to leave because there is something urgent that they need to do (play in a soccer game, buy tickets to a Springsteen concert). Family members assist the protagonist to get away without the parents noticing and in each case conflict ensues that brings a feeling of abandonment from the immediate family.
Two things struck me about the film. The first is the costume for the father. With the exception of the wedding party which I will discuss in my second, the father is dressed in a dress shirt, tie, and slacks, sometimes a sportcoat. This is the traditional outfit of a 1st generation immigrant. Even though he works in a factory manufacturing cars, he still goes to work or out in public dressed like a successful businessman/financial advisor. There is a belief that in order to achieve success, you must dress as though you have already attained that success. The second is the connection to Bend It Like Beckham, Chadha's previous film, which had a lot more success in the US. There is the best friend's parent who accepts the protagonist quicker than their own. But I am talking about the wedding party scene. In both films, the family is having a wedding party and the protagonist has to leave because there is something urgent that they need to do (play in a soccer game, buy tickets to a Springsteen concert). Family members assist the protagonist to get away without the parents noticing and in each case conflict ensues that brings a feeling of abandonment from the immediate family.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Flatliners (1990) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
Stupid, to be sure (Kiefer Sutherland gets his ass kicked by a supernatural 8-year-old on multiple occasions) - and I do side with the critiques that this could have been a lot deeper, but this is still completely righteous. A ghostly, heavily portentous, lush modern day gothic-medical melodrama that came out in the 90s yet *screams* 1985 right down to the haircuts. Try to picture 𝘚𝘵. 𝘌𝘭𝘮𝘰'𝘴 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦 as a gen X YA horror flick. One of my all-time favorite film premises, and even Schumacher's (RIP) supporters I don't think give him enough credit for making all these interesting camp spectacles that - of all things - you can hardly say are unoriginal *nor* forgettable. A bunch of medical students chill out in an old cathedral thing which doubles as a medical lab where they perform clandestine death experiments on each other out in the open and argue about who can die the longest lmao, it's whoppingly silly stuff that thankfully takes itself dead (no pun intended) seriously. Pulpy, moody, atmospheric, and just looks extraordinary to boot - the visuals really tie that bind between our world and whatever lies beyond in an increasingly unstable way, as if some sort of constant (losing) struggle. So good that I actually even liked the infamous sentimental ending.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Better Watch Out (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A Christmas film... a horror film... also described as a comedy and a thriller on IMDb, although I find both of those a little inaccurate. If you asked me to sum up the genre I'd say "it's a Christmas horror..?" and then scrunch up my face in uncertain disgust.
It's difficult to sum this one up without exposing the end of the movie. I would like everyone to have the same confused experience watching this as I did.
I sat down at home to this DVD. I'd excitedly purchased this when I found out about it. With the tagline of "you might be home but you're not alone" you know exactly what you're getting. Or at least that's what you think. Everything promises to make this Home Alone for adults... Home Alone is for adults too of course. No one should deprive themselves of that Christmas wonder.
Not going to lie, when I saw Patrick Warburton pop up on screen it was like a Christmas miracle. I love him. He can do no wrong, and thankfully he didn't disappoint.
Olivia DeJonge made a great job of the role of Ashley. It felt like the serious sort of acting that the film needed to make it a horror film and not more of a comedy. Alongside Levi Miller as Luke we were given an interesting, if awkward on screen leading pair. Miller didn't quite hit the same notes for me as DeJonge did. I think that is more to do with the way the character is written than the acting, as he certainly puts everything into his scenes.
So... I sat down (I know, that was a way back now!) with my pad and pen waiting to jot some notes as I watched. I made a few scribblngs every now and then... until it happened... and you'll know it when it does. At that point I threw my pen across the room and told the film to f*** off.
The first part of the film had so much potential and I was really enjoying it but after "the moment" I just lost all interest in the way they'd taken it. I really wanted a more serious horror film than the unbelieveable thing that was given to us. What we were left with was cringeworthy and uncomfortable to watch, but I will give it credit for its Home Alone moments.
I really would like to know what you guys thought of the end of this film if you saw it.
Being that I was at home watching this on DVD that meant that I got some extras, well, extra. Singular. The fairly subtantial "making of" featurette was quite interesting and reveals just how hardcore DeJonge is when it came to this film.
What you should do
It's potentially drinking game material, but it definitely won't be making it into my Christmas movie rotation.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Without a doubt I would like Patrick Warburton please. If he could be delivered to me in a Christmas tie, even better.
It's difficult to sum this one up without exposing the end of the movie. I would like everyone to have the same confused experience watching this as I did.
I sat down at home to this DVD. I'd excitedly purchased this when I found out about it. With the tagline of "you might be home but you're not alone" you know exactly what you're getting. Or at least that's what you think. Everything promises to make this Home Alone for adults... Home Alone is for adults too of course. No one should deprive themselves of that Christmas wonder.
Not going to lie, when I saw Patrick Warburton pop up on screen it was like a Christmas miracle. I love him. He can do no wrong, and thankfully he didn't disappoint.
Olivia DeJonge made a great job of the role of Ashley. It felt like the serious sort of acting that the film needed to make it a horror film and not more of a comedy. Alongside Levi Miller as Luke we were given an interesting, if awkward on screen leading pair. Miller didn't quite hit the same notes for me as DeJonge did. I think that is more to do with the way the character is written than the acting, as he certainly puts everything into his scenes.
So... I sat down (I know, that was a way back now!) with my pad and pen waiting to jot some notes as I watched. I made a few scribblngs every now and then... until it happened... and you'll know it when it does. At that point I threw my pen across the room and told the film to f*** off.
The first part of the film had so much potential and I was really enjoying it but after "the moment" I just lost all interest in the way they'd taken it. I really wanted a more serious horror film than the unbelieveable thing that was given to us. What we were left with was cringeworthy and uncomfortable to watch, but I will give it credit for its Home Alone moments.
I really would like to know what you guys thought of the end of this film if you saw it.
Being that I was at home watching this on DVD that meant that I got some extras, well, extra. Singular. The fairly subtantial "making of" featurette was quite interesting and reveals just how hardcore DeJonge is when it came to this film.
What you should do
It's potentially drinking game material, but it definitely won't be making it into my Christmas movie rotation.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Without a doubt I would like Patrick Warburton please. If he could be delivered to me in a Christmas tie, even better.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/