Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Saving Ruby King in Books
Jun 18, 2020
Ruby King is twenty-four-years-old when her mother, Alice, is found murdered in the home she shared with Ruby and Ruby's father, Lebanon. The police show little interest in--to them--another death in the King's black neighborhood, but Alice's death unhinges Ruby and leaves her alone with her violent, abusive father. Her only confidante is her best friend, Layla, who knows how long Alice and Ruby have suffered under Lebanon's wrath. But Layla is angry that Ruby won't do more to get away from Lebanon and she's even angrier at her father, a pastor, who has been close to Lebanon all these years, and yet never did anything to free Alice or Ruby from his abuse. Layla is determined to save Ruby, but as she works to rescue her friend, she starts to uncover a world of secrets and lies flowing back generations.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.
Debbiereadsbook (1102 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Ballistic: Standard Edition
Sports and Utilities
App
Get Ballistic Standard Edition Today!!! "I shoot on Team Louisiana Precision Rifles in Tactical...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
TM
The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution
Book
In the tradition of Theodore White's landmark books, the definitive look at how Donald J. Trump...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Welcome Home (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
The holiday from hell
We’ve all had holidays that didn’t go according to plan, but George Ratliff’s new thriller takes this idea to a whole new level. Welcome Home follows couple Cassie and Bryan as they travel to Italy together. They’ve rented a secluded, spacious home for a few days, so they can spend some quality time together. So far, so simple. However, it’s soon revealed that they’ve been having relationship problems due to Cassie having a drunken one night stand. It’s clear that this isn’t going to be an easy trip for them, and that’s before we meet the real threat.
Aaron Paul and Emily Ratajkowski are great in the lead roles. They feel like your everyday, plausible couple who are simply trying to repair their relationship. I found myself rooting for them and hoping they could reconnect throughout. Despite the slow pacing in places, I did genuinely care about them as characters. Without the strength of their acting, I think this film might have struggled in places as some of it seemed to drag or could’ve easily been cut out. Welcome Home does have similarities to the 2008 film The Strangers, in which see a strained relationship set within a secluded summer home, with the couple being terrorised by masked murderers.
This film’s antagonist, Frederico, is less ambiguous than that, and instead spends time with the couple and tries to befriend them in order to gain their trust. Cassie is a lot more receptive to this than Bryan, who is distrustful of Frederico after he brought Cassie back to the house when she sprained her ankle whilst running. He believes something else is going on, based on the one night stand. At first they believe he’s a neighbour, so nothing really seems out of the ordinary. Then, it starts to get weird. He says some strange things and starts showing up uninvited, even running into them on the street and deciding to turn up to the house to cook dinner.
Every second that Frederico’s on the screen is an uncomfortable one, and you know he’s not the innocent person he’s pretending to be. It’s only a matter of time before his true intentions are revealed to the couple, putting them both in danger. Italian actor Riccardo Scamarcio really blew me away in this film and I’m excited to see more from him.
Although it takes a while to get going, the second and third act of Welcome Home is a tense and unnerving experience. Frederico goes from friendly, helpful neighbour to a creepy psychopath very quickly, and it turns out he has very dark intentions for the couple. He spends the film manipulating them and turning them against each other. I won’t spoil it for you, but it turns this couple’s holiday into a complete nightmare. I did quite like the big reveal at the end, though it seems a little far-fetched it’s not beyond the realms of possibility given the digital age that we live in. This fact is emphasised by the voyeuristic nature of the camera, how we’re always peeking around doors or watching things we shouldn’t be.
I have seen stronger thrillers with better pacing, but Welcome Home is certainly an entertaining watch if you’re looking for a new, exciting story with a strong cast list. It puts a fun twist on your classic home invasion horror, with a charming, magnetic antagonist to really lure you in. I’d recommend giving it a go if you get the opportunity, as it’s worth it for the characters and the ending.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/13/the-holiday-from-hell-a-review-of-welcome-home/
Aaron Paul and Emily Ratajkowski are great in the lead roles. They feel like your everyday, plausible couple who are simply trying to repair their relationship. I found myself rooting for them and hoping they could reconnect throughout. Despite the slow pacing in places, I did genuinely care about them as characters. Without the strength of their acting, I think this film might have struggled in places as some of it seemed to drag or could’ve easily been cut out. Welcome Home does have similarities to the 2008 film The Strangers, in which see a strained relationship set within a secluded summer home, with the couple being terrorised by masked murderers.
This film’s antagonist, Frederico, is less ambiguous than that, and instead spends time with the couple and tries to befriend them in order to gain their trust. Cassie is a lot more receptive to this than Bryan, who is distrustful of Frederico after he brought Cassie back to the house when she sprained her ankle whilst running. He believes something else is going on, based on the one night stand. At first they believe he’s a neighbour, so nothing really seems out of the ordinary. Then, it starts to get weird. He says some strange things and starts showing up uninvited, even running into them on the street and deciding to turn up to the house to cook dinner.
Every second that Frederico’s on the screen is an uncomfortable one, and you know he’s not the innocent person he’s pretending to be. It’s only a matter of time before his true intentions are revealed to the couple, putting them both in danger. Italian actor Riccardo Scamarcio really blew me away in this film and I’m excited to see more from him.
Although it takes a while to get going, the second and third act of Welcome Home is a tense and unnerving experience. Frederico goes from friendly, helpful neighbour to a creepy psychopath very quickly, and it turns out he has very dark intentions for the couple. He spends the film manipulating them and turning them against each other. I won’t spoil it for you, but it turns this couple’s holiday into a complete nightmare. I did quite like the big reveal at the end, though it seems a little far-fetched it’s not beyond the realms of possibility given the digital age that we live in. This fact is emphasised by the voyeuristic nature of the camera, how we’re always peeking around doors or watching things we shouldn’t be.
I have seen stronger thrillers with better pacing, but Welcome Home is certainly an entertaining watch if you’re looking for a new, exciting story with a strong cast list. It puts a fun twist on your classic home invasion horror, with a charming, magnetic antagonist to really lure you in. I’d recommend giving it a go if you get the opportunity, as it’s worth it for the characters and the ending.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/13/the-holiday-from-hell-a-review-of-welcome-home/