Search
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Story: 51 starts when the government are finally going to let people into Area 51 for the first time with Sam Whitaker (Shea) and new blogger Claire (Branch). Colonel Martin (Boxleitner) is showing the guests around the base with the idea of showing just the simple ones rather than the real secrets.
With the tour happening around the base we see how the aliens held there start their own escape. The tour group must work together to survive while the soldiers on the outside also have to deal with the aliens coming up the levels.
51 is a horror sci-fi film set inside Area 51, we actually get to see the idea that aliens have been trapped there for decades and most importantly we get to see different types of aliens. This helps play into the conspiracy side to the story very well. When it comes to the survival side of the story there isn’t too much fresh happening here but it does make you wonder what abilities each of these aliens actually has while the film unfolds.
Actor Review
Vanessa Branch: Claire is an internet reporter with a reputation of pushing the limits to make sure she breaks the story, she isn’t one of the Colonel’s first choices to be part of the tour but while she is here she will look to break the big story. Vanessa is a solid strong leading lady for this horror film.
Bruce Boxleitner: Col Martin is the man who has to lead the tour group around Area 51, he doesn’t like the idea and will try to make this the simplest tour possible giving away only small amounts of details. Bruce comes off like a normal colonel you would expect to see in thi style of film.
Rachel Miner: Sgt Hanna is on the outside guarding the base she leads the men while having her own troubled past and reputation to live up to. Rachel is solid in this role which feels like a completely different story to the main tour.
Jason London: Aaron ‘Shoes’ Schumacher is a rookie soldier that is under the wing of Sgt Hanna, he wants to see combat but has to deal with not having this chance for now. Jason is solid in this role where we do get a few extra laugh from this film.
Support Cast: 51 has a supporting cast which includes different of soldiers as well as the fellow reporters, each one comes off slightly disposable through the story.
Director Review: Jason Connery – Jason gives us a horror that has fresh twists while being the standard survival thriller.
Horror: 51 is filled with blood soaked kills throughout the survival horror side of the story.
Sci-Fi: 51 takes us to Area 51 with aliens trying to escape their prisons which heaps all of the sci-fi side of the story involved.
Settings: 51 is set at Area 51 for the whole film which plays into the conspiracy side of the story.
Special Effects: 51 has low budget effects which work once we see the aliens made with practical effects.
Suggestion: 51 is one I feel the horror fans out there can watch late night on TV and get the enjoyment out of it. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Different types of aliens involved.
Worst Part: Hanna and Shoes storyline seems out of place and almost talking to audience early on.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: The military’s best-kept secret just broke loose.
Overall: Simple but enjoyable sci-fi horror film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/04/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-51-2011/
With the tour happening around the base we see how the aliens held there start their own escape. The tour group must work together to survive while the soldiers on the outside also have to deal with the aliens coming up the levels.
51 is a horror sci-fi film set inside Area 51, we actually get to see the idea that aliens have been trapped there for decades and most importantly we get to see different types of aliens. This helps play into the conspiracy side to the story very well. When it comes to the survival side of the story there isn’t too much fresh happening here but it does make you wonder what abilities each of these aliens actually has while the film unfolds.
Actor Review
Vanessa Branch: Claire is an internet reporter with a reputation of pushing the limits to make sure she breaks the story, she isn’t one of the Colonel’s first choices to be part of the tour but while she is here she will look to break the big story. Vanessa is a solid strong leading lady for this horror film.
Bruce Boxleitner: Col Martin is the man who has to lead the tour group around Area 51, he doesn’t like the idea and will try to make this the simplest tour possible giving away only small amounts of details. Bruce comes off like a normal colonel you would expect to see in thi style of film.
Rachel Miner: Sgt Hanna is on the outside guarding the base she leads the men while having her own troubled past and reputation to live up to. Rachel is solid in this role which feels like a completely different story to the main tour.
Jason London: Aaron ‘Shoes’ Schumacher is a rookie soldier that is under the wing of Sgt Hanna, he wants to see combat but has to deal with not having this chance for now. Jason is solid in this role where we do get a few extra laugh from this film.
Support Cast: 51 has a supporting cast which includes different of soldiers as well as the fellow reporters, each one comes off slightly disposable through the story.
Director Review: Jason Connery – Jason gives us a horror that has fresh twists while being the standard survival thriller.
Horror: 51 is filled with blood soaked kills throughout the survival horror side of the story.
Sci-Fi: 51 takes us to Area 51 with aliens trying to escape their prisons which heaps all of the sci-fi side of the story involved.
Settings: 51 is set at Area 51 for the whole film which plays into the conspiracy side of the story.
Special Effects: 51 has low budget effects which work once we see the aliens made with practical effects.
Suggestion: 51 is one I feel the horror fans out there can watch late night on TV and get the enjoyment out of it. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Different types of aliens involved.
Worst Part: Hanna and Shoes storyline seems out of place and almost talking to audience early on.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: The military’s best-kept secret just broke loose.
Overall: Simple but enjoyable sci-fi horror film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/04/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-51-2011/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
At 1 hour 25 minutes you'd be forgiven for thinking this would be a brief affair, but if you're not into it then this 85-minute film is agonisingly long.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) works as a record company intern at Pinnacle Records. His boss Sergio Roma (Sean "Diddy" Combs) is wanting a "game changer" that will help turn the company around. Aaron pitches the idea that since it's the ten year anniversary of out of control British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) performing at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, he believes that the company can make a serious profit from not only a return performance, but by re-releasing his back catalog, as well. Sergio eventually goes for the idea and Aaron flies out to London to bring Aldous back to America to prepare for the show. Unfortunately for him, Aldous Snow's lifestyle tends to rub off on him and turns his life upside down in the process. As Aaron deals with some relationship issues and has his hands full trying to keep Aldous sober, Aldous has some relationship problems of his own and begins to wonder if there's more to life than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It seems like a moot point by the time the Greek Theater show sells out as Aaron may not have a girlfriend or a job by the time the show begins and Aldous speaks of skipping the gig altogether.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
645 PRO Mk III
Photo & Video
App
645 PRO Mk III has been designed, from the ground up, for professional and serious amateur...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
The underwater eye candy made it a fun watch!
I knew there was a reason a bought a 75" television. It is for movies like Aquaman. Ok fine, the screenplay isn't very good at times and I did not enjoy some of Aquaman's one liners, although I do not know if that is true to the comic character or not.
Having not known much about the character other than what has already appeared in the collective recent DCU films, I was eager to learn more about his origins and his universe.
His mother escapes her arranged marriage by coming to the surface and meeting a lighthouse keeper whom she grows to love and has their child. He will grow up to be the Atlantian who should be king but does not want the responsibility.
The film reminded me a lot of a Thor movie at times, just this time under water instead of an Asgard realm bereft with creatures big and small.
The real star of this was the underwater realm itself. The lighting, glowing and use of color was unlike any movie released to date I have seen and that says a lot. The visuals were not only groundbreaking and striking in their depth and complexity (which normally I rip on CGI puke movies), but served to compliment the actors and story in symbiosis.
I couldn't believe the number of negative reviews on IMDb for this film (although haters gotta hate everything these days). I think you can look past a little corny dialogue and let yourself get lost within the visual splendor that is Aquaman!
Having not known much about the character other than what has already appeared in the collective recent DCU films, I was eager to learn more about his origins and his universe.
His mother escapes her arranged marriage by coming to the surface and meeting a lighthouse keeper whom she grows to love and has their child. He will grow up to be the Atlantian who should be king but does not want the responsibility.
The film reminded me a lot of a Thor movie at times, just this time under water instead of an Asgard realm bereft with creatures big and small.
The real star of this was the underwater realm itself. The lighting, glowing and use of color was unlike any movie released to date I have seen and that says a lot. The visuals were not only groundbreaking and striking in their depth and complexity (which normally I rip on CGI puke movies), but served to compliment the actors and story in symbiosis.
I couldn't believe the number of negative reviews on IMDb for this film (although haters gotta hate everything these days). I think you can look past a little corny dialogue and let yourself get lost within the visual splendor that is Aquaman!
Darren (64 KP) rated Midnight Run (1988) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
An under-rated Masterpiece
Midnight Run is an Action/Comedy masterpiece.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.