Search
Search results
BeatBurn Treadmill Trainer - Walking, Running, and Jogging Workouts
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
BeatBurn uses lolo's exclusive BEAT-SYNC technology, changing the beat of your music to perfectly...
Lloyds Bank Express Logon
Finance
App
Express Logon for iPad is specially designed to make banking with us fast, convenient and more...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 12, 2021
Reynolds and particularly Comer are great (1 more)
Lots of laughs, most of them on target
Ready Player Truman
I managed to see “Free Guy” last night at a Cineworld “Secret Cinema” event.
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
The Sister
8.0
Rate It
Book
‘I did something terrible Grace. I hope you can forgive me…’ Grace hasn't been the same...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
There has been an awakening...
Contains spoilers, click to show
There was a point where I honestly thought that this day was never going to come. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in 30 years we have an exciting, entertaining Star Wars movie. Now this review will contain a non spoilers section and a spoilers section, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, maybe don’t read past the spoiler warning. So, strap in because if this franchise is starting as it means to go on, then I’ve got a good feeling about this…
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.