Search
Search results
EasterBunnyKiller (31 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Saw this before starting my shift the Saturday of opening weekend. I would have rated this higher if it hadn't hurt my fanboy feelings as much as it did, but I am of two minds about this movie.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A teenage girl and her little brother must survive a wild 24 hours during which a mass hysteria of unknown origins causes parents to turn violently on their own kids.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 21, 2019)
A worthy sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
The original Happy Death Day was a real pleasant surprise. A cross between Groundhog Day and Scream, with our heroine being killed by a baby face mask wearing killer every day, only to wake up again at the start of the same day. With a long list of potential suspects, and slowly feeling the effects of dying repeatedly, she set about trying to find the killers identity. Much of what made the first movie so enjoyable was largely down to lead character Tree, played by Jessica Rothe and the intensely hilarious way that she approached the whole situation. It wasn't exactly a horror movie, more of a comedy thriller.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Little Monsters (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Amazingly, I managed to head into Get Out having not even seen the trailer. It had been appearing more and more frequently on my news feeds recently, usually accompanied by a lot of positive buzz, and usually featuring an image of lead character Chris, wide eyed and terrified, with a tear running down his cheek (note that I’ve continued this trend with my review!). Described as a racial satire/horror it just didn’t really feature high on my watch list, but I booked a ticket to go see it, wanting to see what all the buzz was about. I’m kind of glad that I went in relatively blind as to what to expect though, as I was absolutely blown away by it.
Daniel Kaluuya plays Chris, a young black man dating a white girl called Rose (Allison Williams). He’s preparing to go and meet her parents for the first time but he’s a bit unsure as to what they’re going to think about him, despite Rose assuring him that he’s got nothing to worry about. When they arrive at the huge house out in the country, her parents really are fine with Chris. And they take every opportunity during their conversations to be positive about race and to assure Chris that they’re fine with him too, to the point where Chris (and us) begin to feel a little bit uneasy. This unease isn’t helped by the fact that there are two black servants in the house, neither of whom have very much to say and both acting very strangely. At night, the housekeeper wanders quietly around the house while the groundsman sprints around outside in the dark!
Paranoia and tension continues when a large group of family friends arrives for a party and they all seem very keen to get to know Chris and bond with him. One of the guests even has a black ‘companion’ who is also acting strangely. Despite the assurances from all, things definitely are not OK…
Of the little I read about Get Out beforehand, one of the reviews that stuck with me most described it a little bit like From Dusk Til Dawn in the way that everything suddenly all goes to shit in a hugely enjoyable and unexpected twist. There are definitely no vampires or anything similar in this movie, but I felt that it was a pretty good comparison. The movie spends a long time putting you on the edge of your seat, building up the tension, providing plenty of food for thought on modern day racism and adding the odd bit of welcome comedy relief from Chris’ friend on the end of the phone trying to support him. It’s all hugely enjoyable and even though you can guess pretty early on what’s going on, it’s all still hugely satisfying when the truth finally is revealed and the violence and action take over.
Daniel Kaluuya plays Chris, a young black man dating a white girl called Rose (Allison Williams). He’s preparing to go and meet her parents for the first time but he’s a bit unsure as to what they’re going to think about him, despite Rose assuring him that he’s got nothing to worry about. When they arrive at the huge house out in the country, her parents really are fine with Chris. And they take every opportunity during their conversations to be positive about race and to assure Chris that they’re fine with him too, to the point where Chris (and us) begin to feel a little bit uneasy. This unease isn’t helped by the fact that there are two black servants in the house, neither of whom have very much to say and both acting very strangely. At night, the housekeeper wanders quietly around the house while the groundsman sprints around outside in the dark!
Paranoia and tension continues when a large group of family friends arrives for a party and they all seem very keen to get to know Chris and bond with him. One of the guests even has a black ‘companion’ who is also acting strangely. Despite the assurances from all, things definitely are not OK…
Of the little I read about Get Out beforehand, one of the reviews that stuck with me most described it a little bit like From Dusk Til Dawn in the way that everything suddenly all goes to shit in a hugely enjoyable and unexpected twist. There are definitely no vampires or anything similar in this movie, but I felt that it was a pretty good comparison. The movie spends a long time putting you on the edge of your seat, building up the tension, providing plenty of food for thought on modern day racism and adding the odd bit of welcome comedy relief from Chris’ friend on the end of the phone trying to support him. It’s all hugely enjoyable and even though you can guess pretty early on what’s going on, it’s all still hugely satisfying when the truth finally is revealed and the violence and action take over.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Peelers (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Last night I watched a movie that was so rotten that not only was I not able to write a review for it, but I felt like a needed a palette cleanser. When I received the trailer for Peelers I thought to myself ‘A Zombie Horror Comedy set in a Strip Club sooooo Boobies’ okay I am in lets have a look at Peelers. Holy crap was this the palette cleanser I needed.
Blue Jean (Wren Walker) is an ex Major League Baseball player seeing out her days as the super sexy, super sassy owner of a small-town strip club. BJ (ha BJ) has decided tonight is going to be her last night as she sells up to some local douche-bag who has every intention of pulling the place down. So with this being Blue’s last night she wants it to go out with a bang and we are introduced to all the right characters to make this happen (Mostly diaper wearing peeing on stage strippers). Throw in some recently exposed to some crazy shit coal miners, a mass blood bath and shenanigans and this movie becomes less Striptease and more From Dusk till Dawn.
This movie is an absolute riot, I had so much fun watching this and was pleasantly surprised with what waited around every corner. So often an independent movie can either be great but look terrible or Terrible but look great. I found Peelers to be both it looks great and is great. The movie looks polished as hell for a movie that I assume didn’t have the biggest budget. The script from Lisa DeVita is refreshingly original but manages to throw most of the Zombie tropes at us that we know and love, remember people jump scares can still be effective. Dialogue wise the chemistry and banter just flows.
Seve Schlenz has turned out a great movie here and considering this is second Feature as a director you really wouldn’t know it. Lets talk about effects for a second. Its pretty much all practical, which you would expect. Great care and attention has been taken by the team to make them A. Scary but B. not shit. The cast is on point making this a fun as hell enjoyable romp (with Boobies) from start to finish. Wren Walker as Blue Jean is incredible and you could easily draw comparisons to Uma Thurman in the bad ass stakes with this actress, I look forward to seeing her in more.
This is a solid recommend from me, it was exactly what I needed after the tripe I watched the night before. It may be indie and low budget as balls but it has more fun being exactly that than most. I genuinely thoroughly enjoyed this Flick and think you will too. You have to seek this one out. Did I mention it has Boobies???
Blue Jean (Wren Walker) is an ex Major League Baseball player seeing out her days as the super sexy, super sassy owner of a small-town strip club. BJ (ha BJ) has decided tonight is going to be her last night as she sells up to some local douche-bag who has every intention of pulling the place down. So with this being Blue’s last night she wants it to go out with a bang and we are introduced to all the right characters to make this happen (Mostly diaper wearing peeing on stage strippers). Throw in some recently exposed to some crazy shit coal miners, a mass blood bath and shenanigans and this movie becomes less Striptease and more From Dusk till Dawn.
This movie is an absolute riot, I had so much fun watching this and was pleasantly surprised with what waited around every corner. So often an independent movie can either be great but look terrible or Terrible but look great. I found Peelers to be both it looks great and is great. The movie looks polished as hell for a movie that I assume didn’t have the biggest budget. The script from Lisa DeVita is refreshingly original but manages to throw most of the Zombie tropes at us that we know and love, remember people jump scares can still be effective. Dialogue wise the chemistry and banter just flows.
Seve Schlenz has turned out a great movie here and considering this is second Feature as a director you really wouldn’t know it. Lets talk about effects for a second. Its pretty much all practical, which you would expect. Great care and attention has been taken by the team to make them A. Scary but B. not shit. The cast is on point making this a fun as hell enjoyable romp (with Boobies) from start to finish. Wren Walker as Blue Jean is incredible and you could easily draw comparisons to Uma Thurman in the bad ass stakes with this actress, I look forward to seeing her in more.
This is a solid recommend from me, it was exactly what I needed after the tripe I watched the night before. It may be indie and low budget as balls but it has more fun being exactly that than most. I genuinely thoroughly enjoyed this Flick and think you will too. You have to seek this one out. Did I mention it has Boobies???
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.