Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Kelly (279 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Jan 7, 2019
Enjoyable
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had been eager to watch this for some time after reading reviews, and was not disappointed. Having never read the book in which the film is based, I did not know what to expect. I knew that the film was a horror, but am not easily shocked or scared, so was not expecting much from this point of view, however I did find the film enjoyable in terms of the storyline.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
F*ck Off Hittler!
Jo Jo Rabbit while by no means a bad movie its just one that I think would of worked better as a short instead. Think Son Of Rambow meets Wes Anderson and Jo Jo sits somewhere in between, its not bad but its also not greatness either. Containing way more serious drama and a much darker tone than the trailer has you believe what I found most interesting of all were the bleakest parts of the story which hit home way more than the comedy side. I just felt the humour took away from the films more serious messages of manipulation and the mind poluting of the naive. A good job is done of showing how fragile, young and inocent minds are easily lead astray/influenced by propaganda, stories, lies, the spread of hatred and how the excitement of holding a weapon, fighting in a war or wearing a uniform almost takes away from the overall bigger picture for them as children. Most of these kids see probably grew up without a dad as a role model so seeing hittler praised by all, hearing cool fables about him and seeing him on tv/posters to them at that age is almost like how kids are today with superheros, then to think thats actually what probably happened sends chills up your spine in horror. Sadly these scenes are always dampened with comedy killing the impact of them for me and while I do get what type of film its going for I think id rather of just seen a movie on the darker stuff. Acting is great especially by the boy playing Jo Jo however accents do slip constantly all round again breaking the illusion. Couple this with a middle act that I really struggled with losing intrest frequently and looking at my watch. While it does have the heart and certainly the depth in places I cant help but feel really let down by this movie and sadly I left wanting more. Far too serious for teens and not serious enough for adults Jo Jo Rabbit is an alright watch with definitely a few good messages at its muddled heart 'love will always defeat hate' and 'even if you are ugly on skin you still can be lovely from within' so I guess its not all bad.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)
World War Z - the movie that finally dared to make the zombie genre family friendly.
That premise sounds horrible on paper, but somehow, it's not too bad!
Zombie films as a rule of thumb, tend to have a slow build up, before all hell breaks loose, and were treated to over the top violence and gore.
Not the case here... WWZ takes no time at all to kick off, as Brad Pitt and his family find themselves stuck in traffic when the shit hits that fan. Were less than 5 minutes in at this time.
As mentioned, the gore is kept to a minimum, but that didn't bother me. WWZ is more a disaster film than horror, but instead of a tidal wave or a hurricane, the threat are the undead.
And there a lot of them. The zombies here run fast, and in huge numbers, making for some true spectacles as they climb on top of each other to climb buildings etc.
There are two set pieces that are particularly eye catching. The scene in Jerusalem, and the scene on the plane, are both pretty full on and entertaining.
The last quarter of the film is a bit puzzling.
After the aforementioned set pieces, the film really slows down for the last 25 minutes. It's not necessarily a bad move, but just a bit...odd for a Hollywood blockbuster.
The film ends rather abruptly (after feeling a little overlong) and on a freeze frame no less (shoot me now).
The cast are pretty good for the most part - I'm an absolutely unashamed fan of Brad Pitt. I've never seen him play a bad part, so his involvement was always going to be a winner for me.
I've never read the book of WWZ but from what I've heard, the movie sharply deviates from it, pretty much only sharing the title.
From what I've gathered about the books layout, it seems that the film could have explored so much more - it may even suit a series rather than a movie.
WWZ is not much more than a dumb, Hollywood action film, with a couple of jump scares thrown in, but it's pretty entertaining here and there.
And with David Fincher in the directors chair for a future sequel, I'm up for what comes next.
That premise sounds horrible on paper, but somehow, it's not too bad!
Zombie films as a rule of thumb, tend to have a slow build up, before all hell breaks loose, and were treated to over the top violence and gore.
Not the case here... WWZ takes no time at all to kick off, as Brad Pitt and his family find themselves stuck in traffic when the shit hits that fan. Were less than 5 minutes in at this time.
As mentioned, the gore is kept to a minimum, but that didn't bother me. WWZ is more a disaster film than horror, but instead of a tidal wave or a hurricane, the threat are the undead.
And there a lot of them. The zombies here run fast, and in huge numbers, making for some true spectacles as they climb on top of each other to climb buildings etc.
There are two set pieces that are particularly eye catching. The scene in Jerusalem, and the scene on the plane, are both pretty full on and entertaining.
The last quarter of the film is a bit puzzling.
After the aforementioned set pieces, the film really slows down for the last 25 minutes. It's not necessarily a bad move, but just a bit...odd for a Hollywood blockbuster.
The film ends rather abruptly (after feeling a little overlong) and on a freeze frame no less (shoot me now).
The cast are pretty good for the most part - I'm an absolutely unashamed fan of Brad Pitt. I've never seen him play a bad part, so his involvement was always going to be a winner for me.
I've never read the book of WWZ but from what I've heard, the movie sharply deviates from it, pretty much only sharing the title.
From what I've gathered about the books layout, it seems that the film could have explored so much more - it may even suit a series rather than a movie.
WWZ is not much more than a dumb, Hollywood action film, with a couple of jump scares thrown in, but it's pretty entertaining here and there.
And with David Fincher in the directors chair for a future sequel, I'm up for what comes next.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 25, 2019)
Liar liar pants on fire
Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark feels like if it had been released in the 90s then it probably would of been quite an entertaining/passable movie but as it stands now it brings nothing we haven't seen a million times already to the table & sadly not even nostalgia can save it from becoming tiresome after just 40minutes in. One thing I certainly can not fault here is its high production standards, its not only shot extremely well but sets & creatures are all interesting/creative & are show clear inspiration from classic horror movies & their tropes. A huge problem is tension, tone & pacing however. Tone is somwhere in between Goosebumps & a Conjuring movie on one side its far to goofy/tame to cater to adults then on the other its far too scary/disturbing for kids but it never seems to find the right balance between the two. Its creature also while they look good loose their menace & terror due to being shown far to much for extended periods of time leading to times where they would become laughable & taken less seriously by the audience. Plot & situations are also highly predictable & this the seems to make the already long run time sem like an eternity leading to scenes that are especially far to dialog heavy which killing the pacing because we already know what's coming next. Story is unnecessarily long winded in a need to try & make the film different but once it reaches its conclusion its hard to care because its really not an interesting tale at all. Themes of how the simple power of story telling, lies & made up tales can effect peoples lives in the most drastic of ways are very interesting but not particularly executed well instead becoming jumbled & contradicted when mixed into the long drawn out plot. Acting is so so but no one really stands out or expresses emotion that belivable making character connections hard. So sadly I cant recomend seeing this movie, while its fine & quite well made its just bland/uninteresting & everything thats good about it is spoiled/shown in the trailer (if you've seen trailer the film will be extremely predictable for you & offer no surprises). Save your money or go see crawl instead.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
TL;DR - I'm never doing an escape room ever again, and potentially never going anywhere that begins with a mysterious invitation.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated In Fabric (2018) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020
Verdict: Weird
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Kissed a Girl in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A fun movie set romance
Noa Birnbaum's dream is to work in the movies: in horror special effects and makeup. She finally gets a chance to work on a real movie (one step closer to joining the union), but it means dropping out of school, where she's earning her theater degree. Her parents won't be pleased. On the set, she's face to face with actress Lilah Silver, whom Noa has had a crush on for ages. Lilah has her own dreams, to move beyond B-list horror films and into true stardom. This starring role as the "final girl" could be her opportunity. When she meets openly out Noa, Lilah may finally have a chance to admit to her own bisexuality. But a relationship could have its own problems for both Lilah and Noa.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.