Search
Search results
The Craggus (360 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Jul 29, 2018
Hotel Artemis (2018) is perfect for a short stay. #Review
I approached “Hotel Artemis” with an uneasy trepidation, born out of learning that it ran for a trim (these days) 96 minutes. My reasoning was simple: usually a high-concept star-powered action thriller that runs around the hour and a half mark is a sign of something going wrong and a desperate attempt to save the film in the editing suite. I needn’t have worried because if that is the case, I couldn’t see the joins. Drew Pearce’s feature film directorial debut is a lean, linear slice of action cinema with some terrific performances...
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusHotelArtemis
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusHotelArtemis
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Stairs (2019) in Movies
Nov 2, 2019
Toby Osmond (3 more)
Story
Tom Paton
Alana Wallace
Don't Go Down
This movie is everything you would hope for in a Tom Paton flick and a hell of a lot more. A high concept psychological horror/thriller like you wouldnt believe that plays in the sci-fi genre realm. So yeah its a mind melding genre bending smorgasboard.
With Samantha Schnitzler and Bently Kalu (Ben Garrett) doing arguably a fair chunk of the heavy lifting, I am always happy to see these guys share the screen. Bently just seems to have this protective nature when his characters interact with Sam's, Schnitzler is always on point as a total Bad Ass and this time gets to play with her more emotional side.
This movie is more than an actioner, its more than a thriller... Stairs lives in many genres while silently making its own. I have said it before and I will say it one more time, the team behind this movie just took one hell of a step in their already solid game to that next level. Lets just hope it doesnt send them back to the start (see what I did there).
With Samantha Schnitzler and Bently Kalu (Ben Garrett) doing arguably a fair chunk of the heavy lifting, I am always happy to see these guys share the screen. Bently just seems to have this protective nature when his characters interact with Sam's, Schnitzler is always on point as a total Bad Ass and this time gets to play with her more emotional side.
This movie is more than an actioner, its more than a thriller... Stairs lives in many genres while silently making its own. I have said it before and I will say it one more time, the team behind this movie just took one hell of a step in their already solid game to that next level. Lets just hope it doesnt send them back to the start (see what I did there).
Awix (3310 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Mar 11, 2019 (Updated Mar 11, 2019)
Depressing, pointless action movie that doesn't seem to know how to make use of its assets. Sociopathic American black-ops officer Marky Mark must take double-agent Iko Uwais 35.4 kilometres in order that he will spill the beans on some terrorist McGuffin or other; lots of people shoot at them on the way.
The premise is decent high-concept stuff, but the director clearly felt it was a bit too straightforward and so a potentially engaging thriller is smothered by too many dead-wood subplots and over-wrought plot twists and character bits. Iko Uwais is a brilliant martial artist, but you'd never know that from the frenetic way this film has been directed and edited (his acting performance is a bit of a revelation though). Much too low-key and down-beat for what's ultimately a thick slab of jingoistic nonsense; a surprisingly bad film considering all the talent involved.
The premise is decent high-concept stuff, but the director clearly felt it was a bit too straightforward and so a potentially engaging thriller is smothered by too many dead-wood subplots and over-wrought plot twists and character bits. Iko Uwais is a brilliant martial artist, but you'd never know that from the frenetic way this film has been directed and edited (his acting performance is a bit of a revelation though). Much too low-key and down-beat for what's ultimately a thick slab of jingoistic nonsense; a surprisingly bad film considering all the talent involved.
Becs (244 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Jan 13, 2019
Intriguing
I watched Bird Box earlier this year and was really intrigued as what it was about. All due to the fact that I was reading the book for my Thriller book club and because of Sandra Friggin' Bullock.
It was good, but I was left confused as to what the "creatures" were and the ending was honestly such trash. I'm going to be that person and say: the book was better. But that's only because the book did a much better way at describing everything that was going on and it actually made sense.
The reason why I gave this such a high rating is that the movie was very enjoyable to watch. I would most defiantly re-watch it again and it was super intense, which are my type of movies. The execution was middle-ground, not the best but also not the worse. I also loved how they went from past to present, helped get a better understanding of the background of the story.
All in all, the movie had a few flaws but it was an interesting watch and left you on the edge of your seat at times.
It was good, but I was left confused as to what the "creatures" were and the ending was honestly such trash. I'm going to be that person and say: the book was better. But that's only because the book did a much better way at describing everything that was going on and it actually made sense.
The reason why I gave this such a high rating is that the movie was very enjoyable to watch. I would most defiantly re-watch it again and it was super intense, which are my type of movies. The execution was middle-ground, not the best but also not the worse. I also loved how they went from past to present, helped get a better understanding of the background of the story.
All in all, the movie had a few flaws but it was an interesting watch and left you on the edge of your seat at times.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Pretty Little Wife in Books
Jan 7, 2021
Slow to start, but ultimately an intriguing and unique thriller
Lila Ridgefield's husband is missing. A beloved high school teacher, his boss, colleagues, and brother cannot believe that Aaron Payne would just disappear. He's certainly not the type to simply not show up for work one day. As for his wife, Lila is known more for her cold and quiet demeanor (and, let's be honest, her beauty). She's also pretty confused, because the last time she saw Aaron, she was rather convinced she was looking at his dead body. So where's his car she left behind--and the body? Investigator Ginny Davis is called to look into Aaron's disappearance. At first it seems unrelated to that of a missing local student. But the more Ginny digs, the more she starts to wonder. And the more Lila digs, the more she fears her husband is still alive.
"Despite all her careful planning, he was gone. She had to find Aaron before he found her."
Well, this was quite a book. The beginning was a bit slow for me--it took too long to get to the exciting part, and it was repetitive. It felt like bits and pieces were rehashed over and over. I wanted to shake Lila and tell her to get on with it!
But, once everything gets moving, this is quite an exciting thriller. The last fourth of the story especially is incredibly electrifying and, for the most part, keeps you guessing. (I had a decent idea about whodunnit, but it didn't diminish my enjoyment at all.) I loved the concept of a mystery where the woman kills her husband, yet the main story is, surprise: he disappears anyway. The dynamic between cunning Lila, whom you're never sure you can trust, and Ginny, who is a straightforward and honest investigator, is excellent. I enjoy a book with strong female protagonists and these two are excellent.
Overall, even though this dragged for a bit, it's certainly worth a read. For one thing, it's different, which is so refreshing in the thriller genre. It's also dark, intriguing, and surprising. 3.5 stars, rounded to 4 here.
I received a copy of this book from HarperCollins Publishers and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Lila Ridgefield's husband is missing. A beloved high school teacher, his boss, colleagues, and brother cannot believe that Aaron Payne would just disappear. He's certainly not the type to simply not show up for work one day. As for his wife, Lila is known more for her cold and quiet demeanor (and, let's be honest, her beauty). She's also pretty confused, because the last time she saw Aaron, she was rather convinced she was looking at his dead body. So where's his car she left behind--and the body? Investigator Ginny Davis is called to look into Aaron's disappearance. At first it seems unrelated to that of a missing local student. But the more Ginny digs, the more she starts to wonder. And the more Lila digs, the more she fears her husband is still alive.
"Despite all her careful planning, he was gone. She had to find Aaron before he found her."
Well, this was quite a book. The beginning was a bit slow for me--it took too long to get to the exciting part, and it was repetitive. It felt like bits and pieces were rehashed over and over. I wanted to shake Lila and tell her to get on with it!
But, once everything gets moving, this is quite an exciting thriller. The last fourth of the story especially is incredibly electrifying and, for the most part, keeps you guessing. (I had a decent idea about whodunnit, but it didn't diminish my enjoyment at all.) I loved the concept of a mystery where the woman kills her husband, yet the main story is, surprise: he disappears anyway. The dynamic between cunning Lila, whom you're never sure you can trust, and Ginny, who is a straightforward and honest investigator, is excellent. I enjoy a book with strong female protagonists and these two are excellent.
Overall, even though this dragged for a bit, it's certainly worth a read. For one thing, it's different, which is so refreshing in the thriller genre. It's also dark, intriguing, and surprising. 3.5 stars, rounded to 4 here.
I received a copy of this book from HarperCollins Publishers and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Ace of Spades in Books
Jul 22, 2021
A dark thriller that delves into racism
Devon and Chiamaka are both Senior Prefects at Niveus Private Academy, a super elite school for the wealthy. Chiamaka has been working her entire life to attain success and popularity at Niveus, while Devon, a scholarship student, focuses on his music. The only black students in their school, they aren't exactly friends. But then the two of them suddenly become the target of Aces--an anonymous texter and bully who seems determined to ruin their lives. Aces knows all their secrets, ones that could destroy everything they've worked for. This seems beyond a high school prank. Who is Aces and what do they want?
This was a very hyped book and while I enjoyed it, it didn't live up to the hype for me. This is a really rare opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt. It got better over time, but I had a hard time getting into it, finding it slow and choppy. The plot seemed disjointed and when the big twists are revealed, they seem off with the earlier pieces of the story. I understood the concept, but couldn't really see how it all related, or believe that it all worked together so seamlessly.
The book certainly is timely and its themes of racism and hatred are strong and well-done. It's terrifying because it's true, so to speak. You'll feel for Chia and Devon, though I found myself wishing I knew more about them and that their stories didn't jump from one place to another. Perhaps taking a step back, seeing the tale as an allegory, helps more, but even then I'm not sure (trying to avoid spoilers).
Overall, this is an interesting story, but it was jumpy and made some crazy leaps at times. 3.5, rounded up to 4 stars here.
This was a very hyped book and while I enjoyed it, it didn't live up to the hype for me. This is a really rare opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt. It got better over time, but I had a hard time getting into it, finding it slow and choppy. The plot seemed disjointed and when the big twists are revealed, they seem off with the earlier pieces of the story. I understood the concept, but couldn't really see how it all related, or believe that it all worked together so seamlessly.
The book certainly is timely and its themes of racism and hatred are strong and well-done. It's terrifying because it's true, so to speak. You'll feel for Chia and Devon, though I found myself wishing I knew more about them and that their stories didn't jump from one place to another. Perhaps taking a step back, seeing the tale as an allegory, helps more, but even then I'm not sure (trying to avoid spoilers).
Overall, this is an interesting story, but it was jumpy and made some crazy leaps at times. 3.5, rounded up to 4 stars here.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Total Recall (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remaking classic films is always risky business. Mainly because there is a specific reason those movies are so well received – because they are the best of their time. Remakes are inherently risky because the filmmakers have a bar they have to at least reach, and they absolutely cannot tread the exact same ground as the original. They have to do something new, modern, or innovate. Or, at least they are expected to. When remakes work, they soar. When they don’t… Well, that’s another story. Paul Verhoeven’s “Total Recall” (1990) was an excellent science fiction monolith of its time. It stood out as a heartfelt science fiction story, one that was exceptionally aware of its own identity, design, and overall setting. It reflected the vary soul of its time – intentionally representational of culture at the time (late 80s and early 90s). If Len Wiseman’s remake, “Total Recall” (2012) is supposed to be a representation of contemporary culture in the same way as the original, then I fear our popular culture is too shallow for high minded science fiction. While not a bad movie – in fact, it is actually quite entertaining overall – it just does not feature the same soul and passion of the original film.
The premise follows the original in only a rough sense. Sometime in the future, the world has been left mostly uninhabitable due to a deadly chemical war across the globe. Humanity has been left to residing in the only remaining habitable landmasses – Western Europe and “The Colony”, the latter being modern-day Australia. Because air travel is now impossible, the only travel between the landmasses is through a massive elevator called “The Fall” that cuts through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is a factory worker who works in Europe but lives in “The Colony” with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinstale). His chronic nightmares lead him to become interested in the “Rekall” service – a machine that can implant memories into customers. His interest will lead him on a wild journey with Melina (Jessica Biel) to learn about his true self as well as secrets of Cohaagen’s (Bryan Cranston) tyrannical administration.
The problems of the film really start with the premise. While I enjoy the creativity of something like “The Fall”, it is simply too ridiculous to take seriously. They deserve credit for coming up with a relatively unknown science fiction concept, but an elevator that travels through the center of the Earth? Peoples’ suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far. It serves a practical purpose in the plot – to create the conflict between “The Colony” and the mainland and between the government and the Resistance. Yet, too much time is spent trying to introduce this concept and make it seem plausible than the film should. It honestly seems easier to just use the original film’s conflict between settings – Mars and Earth. I have to ask, what makes an elevator between two lands more contemporary of an idea than a conflict between colonial Mars and Earth. This is especially true considering recent news that a Mars colony might be seen in our lifetimes.
The other problems are more literary. Colin Farrell’s Douglas Quaid is portrayed very well throughout the film, and he manages to make the character satisfactory in the emotional portrayal of a man with a confused past and an insane situation. But even then, I have to say Arnold’s original portrayal seemed overall more human. The problem with Colin Farrell’s character is a mixture of performance and writing in his introduction. It is hard to believe him as someone so distraught over his nightmares that he absolutely feels compelled to go to Rekall. If they spent more time exploring his inner demons and how they are bringing his life down, then he would have been a much more compelling character. As it stands, he just goes through the motions of a protagonist. All of the other characters are the same way. Kate Beckinstale’s villainous Lori and Jessica Biel’s Melina are fairly shallow characters. They are not bad at their roles but that is all they, unfortunately, are: roles. Like Quaid, they just go through the motions, playing their part as clichéd character archetypes. Bryan Cranston is always awesome in any role, but in this he is not given much to work with. All he ends up being is just an evil tyrant with a megalomaniacal plot – with very little reason or background.
Those issues said, there are many things that do work. The pacing is good throughout, with no moments feeling awkward. The art design is exceptional, and there are no moments in the film that are boring to look at. To its credit, almost every scene is full of beautiful science-fiction design. The only complaint in this area is that some of the action scenes feel very cluttered due to the overall noise of The Colony’s design. The plot moves forward steadily, and it is overall simple to understand. That said, it is not without its own faults. The plot starts out great but becomes full of usual secret agent thriller clichés. Also, the plot becomes very campy, not to mention unbelievable, in its third act. The third act is also where there are the most plot holes – notable plot holes at that.
If you can shut your brain off for a couple hours, you can enjoy “Total Recall”. The film is pretty to look at and is absolutely packed with action sequences. All of the action sequences are well shot, well paced, and entertaining. The actors all do great with what they are given; but the problem is that they are not given much. They are all fairly flat characters, but are all satisfactory for the service of the plot – a plot that is well paced and understandable, but one that becomes campy, ridiculous, and peppered with notable plot holes. It is not as tightly written and directed to be a great secret agent thriller, and not as inspired to be a great science fiction story. The original was exceptional in its setting construction – pulling the audience into the amazingly designed Paul Verhoeven world. It was full of comedy and thrills, thought and design. As it stands, the moments that could really go far in establishing a passionate soul-filled, inspired world are instead spent on making quick references to those vary moments from the original. It could have established its own voice, its own heart and soul, but it just settles on being your clichéd average science fiction blockbuster.
The premise follows the original in only a rough sense. Sometime in the future, the world has been left mostly uninhabitable due to a deadly chemical war across the globe. Humanity has been left to residing in the only remaining habitable landmasses – Western Europe and “The Colony”, the latter being modern-day Australia. Because air travel is now impossible, the only travel between the landmasses is through a massive elevator called “The Fall” that cuts through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is a factory worker who works in Europe but lives in “The Colony” with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinstale). His chronic nightmares lead him to become interested in the “Rekall” service – a machine that can implant memories into customers. His interest will lead him on a wild journey with Melina (Jessica Biel) to learn about his true self as well as secrets of Cohaagen’s (Bryan Cranston) tyrannical administration.
The problems of the film really start with the premise. While I enjoy the creativity of something like “The Fall”, it is simply too ridiculous to take seriously. They deserve credit for coming up with a relatively unknown science fiction concept, but an elevator that travels through the center of the Earth? Peoples’ suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far. It serves a practical purpose in the plot – to create the conflict between “The Colony” and the mainland and between the government and the Resistance. Yet, too much time is spent trying to introduce this concept and make it seem plausible than the film should. It honestly seems easier to just use the original film’s conflict between settings – Mars and Earth. I have to ask, what makes an elevator between two lands more contemporary of an idea than a conflict between colonial Mars and Earth. This is especially true considering recent news that a Mars colony might be seen in our lifetimes.
The other problems are more literary. Colin Farrell’s Douglas Quaid is portrayed very well throughout the film, and he manages to make the character satisfactory in the emotional portrayal of a man with a confused past and an insane situation. But even then, I have to say Arnold’s original portrayal seemed overall more human. The problem with Colin Farrell’s character is a mixture of performance and writing in his introduction. It is hard to believe him as someone so distraught over his nightmares that he absolutely feels compelled to go to Rekall. If they spent more time exploring his inner demons and how they are bringing his life down, then he would have been a much more compelling character. As it stands, he just goes through the motions of a protagonist. All of the other characters are the same way. Kate Beckinstale’s villainous Lori and Jessica Biel’s Melina are fairly shallow characters. They are not bad at their roles but that is all they, unfortunately, are: roles. Like Quaid, they just go through the motions, playing their part as clichéd character archetypes. Bryan Cranston is always awesome in any role, but in this he is not given much to work with. All he ends up being is just an evil tyrant with a megalomaniacal plot – with very little reason or background.
Those issues said, there are many things that do work. The pacing is good throughout, with no moments feeling awkward. The art design is exceptional, and there are no moments in the film that are boring to look at. To its credit, almost every scene is full of beautiful science-fiction design. The only complaint in this area is that some of the action scenes feel very cluttered due to the overall noise of The Colony’s design. The plot moves forward steadily, and it is overall simple to understand. That said, it is not without its own faults. The plot starts out great but becomes full of usual secret agent thriller clichés. Also, the plot becomes very campy, not to mention unbelievable, in its third act. The third act is also where there are the most plot holes – notable plot holes at that.
If you can shut your brain off for a couple hours, you can enjoy “Total Recall”. The film is pretty to look at and is absolutely packed with action sequences. All of the action sequences are well shot, well paced, and entertaining. The actors all do great with what they are given; but the problem is that they are not given much. They are all fairly flat characters, but are all satisfactory for the service of the plot – a plot that is well paced and understandable, but one that becomes campy, ridiculous, and peppered with notable plot holes. It is not as tightly written and directed to be a great secret agent thriller, and not as inspired to be a great science fiction story. The original was exceptional in its setting construction – pulling the audience into the amazingly designed Paul Verhoeven world. It was full of comedy and thrills, thought and design. As it stands, the moments that could really go far in establishing a passionate soul-filled, inspired world are instead spent on making quick references to those vary moments from the original. It could have established its own voice, its own heart and soul, but it just settles on being your clichéd average science fiction blockbuster.