Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Doom Patrol in TV
Jul 4, 2020
Not Your Average Superhero Show - 7/10
Doom Patrol Is a 2019 action/sci-fi, comedy/drama superhero TV series based on the DC comic created by writers Arnold Drake and Bob Haney and artist Bruno Premiani. It was developed by Jeremy Carver, and produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television for DC Universe. Doom Patrol is a spin-off of Titans, a superhero TV series also on DC Universe. Starring Brendan Fraser, Timothy Dalton, Alan Tudyk, Matt Bomer and April Bowlby.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020 (Updated Dec 26, 2020)
Zombie hilarity
Film #8 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Shaun of the Dead
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Shhh. You Make a Sound You Die.
These types of movies are never really my favorite. Most of the time the trailer is what makes me not want to see a movie. This time was a little bit different. I didn't really know what to think of this trailer, it wasn't really appealing but I thought I might be good. So I broke the trend and went to see it. This was a fantastic movie and it was written and directed by a guy would not normally associate with horror. .John Krasinski, most known for comedy and sometime drama, made me really like this movie.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk in TV
Mar 16, 2018 (Updated Mar 16, 2018)
The weird thing about the Hulk TV show is that it is almost nothing like the comic book version of the character, but still manages to be a classic piece of television (and was, for a long time, by far the most successful adaptation of a Marvel character to another medium). Creator Kenneth Johnson didn't want to do it, and did his hardest to distance his version from the book (he wanted to change the colour of the Hulk, but Marvel refused to let him), and ended up basically doing an American version of Les Miserables (the novel, not the musical) with Jean Valjean getting cross and swelling up into a monster twice an episode.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Evil Dead II (1987) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
A Blood Fest
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Evil Dead II- is a great and fantasic sequel to the oringal movie. It is horrorfying, terrorfying, creepy, spooky, funny, chilling, thrilling and so much more. You got to thank Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. Those two togther are unstoppable.
Lets talk about the plot: The second of three films in the Evil Dead series is part horror, part comedy, with Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) once again battling horrifying demons at a secluded cabin in the woods. After discovering an audiotape left by a college professor that contains voices reading from the Book of the Dead, Ash's girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) becomes possessed by evil spirits that are awakened by the voices on the tape. Ash soon discovers there is no escaping the woods.
The movie opens with a brief (and altered/reimagined/truncated) recap of the first movie. Ash Williams and his girlfriend, Linda, take a romantic vacation to a seemingly abandoned cabin in the woods. While in the cabin, Ash plays a tape of archaeologist Raymond Knowby, the cabin's previous inhabitant, reciting passages from the Book of the Dead, Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, which he has discovered during an archaeological dig. The recorded incantation unleashes an evil force (also known as the Kandarian Demon) that kills and later possesses Linda, turning her into a "deadite". Ash is then forced to decapitate his girlfriend with a shovel and bury her near the cabin.
The gore in this movie is overtop, so much blood and gore in this movie. This movie is were ash gets his chainsaw hand. Also Groovy.
I love this movie and the other movies as well.
Also Ash and his Oldsmobile land in the year 1300 AD. He is then confronted by a group of knights who initially mistake him for a deadite, but they are quickly distracted when a real one shows up. Ash blasts the harpy-like deadite with his shotgun and is hailed as a hero who has come to save the realm, at which point he breaks down and screams in anguish. Which sets up to Army of Darkness.
I would highly reccordmend watching this film and the others.
Lastly shout to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review correct.
Lets talk about the plot: The second of three films in the Evil Dead series is part horror, part comedy, with Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) once again battling horrifying demons at a secluded cabin in the woods. After discovering an audiotape left by a college professor that contains voices reading from the Book of the Dead, Ash's girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) becomes possessed by evil spirits that are awakened by the voices on the tape. Ash soon discovers there is no escaping the woods.
The movie opens with a brief (and altered/reimagined/truncated) recap of the first movie. Ash Williams and his girlfriend, Linda, take a romantic vacation to a seemingly abandoned cabin in the woods. While in the cabin, Ash plays a tape of archaeologist Raymond Knowby, the cabin's previous inhabitant, reciting passages from the Book of the Dead, Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, which he has discovered during an archaeological dig. The recorded incantation unleashes an evil force (also known as the Kandarian Demon) that kills and later possesses Linda, turning her into a "deadite". Ash is then forced to decapitate his girlfriend with a shovel and bury her near the cabin.
The gore in this movie is overtop, so much blood and gore in this movie. This movie is were ash gets his chainsaw hand. Also Groovy.
I love this movie and the other movies as well.
Also Ash and his Oldsmobile land in the year 1300 AD. He is then confronted by a group of knights who initially mistake him for a deadite, but they are quickly distracted when a real one shows up. Ash blasts the harpy-like deadite with his shotgun and is hailed as a hero who has come to save the realm, at which point he breaks down and screams in anguish. Which sets up to Army of Darkness.
I would highly reccordmend watching this film and the others.
Lastly shout to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review correct.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated House of Dracula (1945) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Get The Gang All Together: The Crossover II
House of Dracula- was a direct sequel to House of Frankenstein, and continued the theme of combining Universal's three most popular monsters: Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange), Count Dracula (John Carradine), and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.).
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
ritten and directed by Jordan Peele, “Get Out” is not so much an actual horror film but more of a dark comedy. The plot is filled with political undertones, spotlighting awkward racial interactions that are shadowed by systemic inequality.
Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) are a vibrant young couple living in the city. He’s a photographer. Not sure what she does. He’s black. She’s white. After dating for four months, Rose convinces Chris to go on a trip to meet her parents. Chris is apprehensive at first and skeptical about how her parents will react to meeting their daughter’s black boyfriend. Rose laughs that off and everything seems fine as they head to the country.
From this point forward the film starts to build in creepiness. It almost has the feel of an M. Night Shayamalan movie like “The Village.” As the plot develops, the audience knows they are supposed to be suspecting something creepy and sinister hiding behind images of normalcy. So everything begins to take on this feel. Rose’s family lives in a creepily perfect mansion in the country. They have a creepily quiet black groundskeeper and a creepily happy black maid.
Fortunately, two things save this film from becoming a hokey Shyamalan style disappointment. The plot is executed in a comedic fashion and it isn’t completely predictable.
The entire film balances a creepy-funny style. Moments of white people awkwardly trying to appear not-racist also build a suspenseful feeling that something darker is behind the surface.
Rose’s mom Missy (Catherine Keener) specializes in hypnosis. It quickly becomes clear that Missy is using mind control tactics to basically enslave black people. Under her spell, her victims take a psychological fall into a dark abyss and are left in a robotic state. It would have been nice if this aspect of the plot was given more screen time.
The film picks up pace when Rose’s parents host a “family” get together that actually turns out to be essentially a “slave” auction. It almost takes too much time to get to this point in the plot. A few more moments, and it would begin to feel like trudging through a repetitious build up. From here forward, it becomes pretty fast paced as Chris desperately tries to escape a horrific fate.
“Get Out” probably won’t actually scare anyone, but it is highly entertaining in a very dark way.
Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) are a vibrant young couple living in the city. He’s a photographer. Not sure what she does. He’s black. She’s white. After dating for four months, Rose convinces Chris to go on a trip to meet her parents. Chris is apprehensive at first and skeptical about how her parents will react to meeting their daughter’s black boyfriend. Rose laughs that off and everything seems fine as they head to the country.
From this point forward the film starts to build in creepiness. It almost has the feel of an M. Night Shayamalan movie like “The Village.” As the plot develops, the audience knows they are supposed to be suspecting something creepy and sinister hiding behind images of normalcy. So everything begins to take on this feel. Rose’s family lives in a creepily perfect mansion in the country. They have a creepily quiet black groundskeeper and a creepily happy black maid.
Fortunately, two things save this film from becoming a hokey Shyamalan style disappointment. The plot is executed in a comedic fashion and it isn’t completely predictable.
The entire film balances a creepy-funny style. Moments of white people awkwardly trying to appear not-racist also build a suspenseful feeling that something darker is behind the surface.
Rose’s mom Missy (Catherine Keener) specializes in hypnosis. It quickly becomes clear that Missy is using mind control tactics to basically enslave black people. Under her spell, her victims take a psychological fall into a dark abyss and are left in a robotic state. It would have been nice if this aspect of the plot was given more screen time.
The film picks up pace when Rose’s parents host a “family” get together that actually turns out to be essentially a “slave” auction. It almost takes too much time to get to this point in the plot. A few more moments, and it would begin to feel like trudging through a repetitious build up. From here forward, it becomes pretty fast paced as Chris desperately tries to escape a horrific fate.
“Get Out” probably won’t actually scare anyone, but it is highly entertaining in a very dark way.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A family is forced to live in silence while hiding from creatures that hunt by sound.
When the trailer for this one was running I honestly thought I was going to be scared witless. It made me so uneasy that I was seriously contemplating not going to see it. I don't mind watching horror films, but I feel a lot more comfortable about it when I'm at home in a brightly lit room.
I sucked it up though and went anyway figuring that having a double bill with something I knew would definitely entertain me would be an easy way to calm my nerves.
We start the film 89 (was is 89? I've got a brain like a sieve) days into the events of A Quiet Place. The monsters are here, and those that are left are doing their best to stay quiet and survive. I've already reached a point where I am a little grumbly. When it announced where it was in the story I was hoping for some kind of jumping timeline showing you a before and after style tale... because surely they're not just going to gloss over the whole "how" of the aliens coming to Earth... Oh.
I can't really fault the bit in the middle of the film. I found it quite enjoyable. There are lots of questions that you wonder about, that I always wonder about in apocalyptic movies. But that's where you have to give them leeway for artistic license I guess.
The part of the story that this film tells is good, and you can follow the journey of the family understanding everything even with the limited dialogue. There's some superb acting at work from everyone involved and I've been recommending it to anyone that asks about it.
With quite a few of us in the cinema it was amusing to see everyone's reaction throughout the movie. Every time someone crinkled a packet or opened a fizzy drink there were noticeable pauses as if we'd all just thought "Oh my god that was too loud" before realising that it's just a movie we're watching.
The main reason this one gets a three star rating and not a four is not only for the lack of origin story but for what I consider to be a cheesy ending suitable for a comedy action film and not what I had been to see. The locked and loaded ending was the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Guardians Of The Galaxy movie where the end credit are punctuated by shots of our heroes going into battle. A perplexing end.
When the trailer for this one was running I honestly thought I was going to be scared witless. It made me so uneasy that I was seriously contemplating not going to see it. I don't mind watching horror films, but I feel a lot more comfortable about it when I'm at home in a brightly lit room.
I sucked it up though and went anyway figuring that having a double bill with something I knew would definitely entertain me would be an easy way to calm my nerves.
We start the film 89 (was is 89? I've got a brain like a sieve) days into the events of A Quiet Place. The monsters are here, and those that are left are doing their best to stay quiet and survive. I've already reached a point where I am a little grumbly. When it announced where it was in the story I was hoping for some kind of jumping timeline showing you a before and after style tale... because surely they're not just going to gloss over the whole "how" of the aliens coming to Earth... Oh.
I can't really fault the bit in the middle of the film. I found it quite enjoyable. There are lots of questions that you wonder about, that I always wonder about in apocalyptic movies. But that's where you have to give them leeway for artistic license I guess.
The part of the story that this film tells is good, and you can follow the journey of the family understanding everything even with the limited dialogue. There's some superb acting at work from everyone involved and I've been recommending it to anyone that asks about it.
With quite a few of us in the cinema it was amusing to see everyone's reaction throughout the movie. Every time someone crinkled a packet or opened a fizzy drink there were noticeable pauses as if we'd all just thought "Oh my god that was too loud" before realising that it's just a movie we're watching.
The main reason this one gets a three star rating and not a four is not only for the lack of origin story but for what I consider to be a cheesy ending suitable for a comedy action film and not what I had been to see. The locked and loaded ending was the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Guardians Of The Galaxy movie where the end credit are punctuated by shots of our heroes going into battle. A perplexing end.