Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
I've taken a few days since seeing Multiverse of Madness to try and digest it as a whole, and decide how I felt about it. It's certainly wild, and leaves a hefty impression. My initial reservations stem from a couple of elements. Firstly, due to the nature of the multiverse, there are some big set pieces and character moments that feel a bit inconsequential. I hope that future projects might reveist these moments and the subsequent fallout from them, but I've got a sneaky feeling that might not happen. Secondly, there's a massive plot point that drives the entire movie that feels a little unearned, even if the execution packs a hell of a punch.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Unfriended: Dark Web (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
It seems no matter where you look these days, there’s some reference to the “Dark Web”. These references range from credit card or Social Security numbers being traded to all sorts of heinous acts that would not only be frowned upon but outright illegal in most countries. The Dark Web and all the nefarious secrets it holds sets the stage for the stand-alone sequel to Blumhouse Productions original film Unfriended.
Unfriended: Dark Web stars Colin Woodell as Matias, a man in his early twenties who is hard at work on an App that he hopes will allow him to better communicate with his deaf girlfriend Amaya (Stephanie Nogueras). His dedication to the app and his insistence on utilizing technology versus simply learning sign language has driven a wedge in their relationship and that lack of ability to communicate plays an important role in the film.
On what seems to be a typical game night of Cards Against Humanity (played on Skype because it’s too difficult for the gang to meet in person), Matias reveals that he has purchased a “new” laptop off Craigslist. While it is clearer and much faster than his previous computer, it regularly hangs and crashes while they are trying to play the game. While investigating the cause of the hang-ups, Matias uncovers a treasure trove of films that are hidden on the laptop. His curiosity gets the best of him and he begins to watch the films only to realize that he has fallen into a den of horror where people pay a lot of money to kill people off in very specific ways. Unfortunately, not only is he sharing what he has discovered with all his friends, but there are also other participants watching his every move.
Unfriended: Dark Web uses much of the same camera tricks that the original used. The entire movie is shot from the perspective of the audience watching the events unfold on the screen as if each were on their own laptop. The action takes place over Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Google and the fact that most people are familiar with these tools helps the audience feel like they are part of the events even more. By the end of the movie it is clear that you are as much of a participant in the horror that unfolds as the individuals participating via the Dark Web. I enjoyed the use of the various technologies to draw the viewer in as much as I did in the original Unfriended. It’s a very interesting and unique way to tell a story.
Unfriended: Dark Web certainly kept my interest throughout the film. I felt it took a little while to find it’s footing, but like a roller coaster with an extremely high climb, once you get over the hump it’s an exhilarating and fulfilling ride. While the technology used may be a bit exaggerated, it is realistic enough to give you that uneasy feeling that this could really happen. While it would take the uttermost bad luck for the events to happen in the perfect way as they do in the film, I enjoyed watching it all unfold. Even though I am still more afraid of my credit card information being sold on the Dark Web than the events of Unfriended happening, I would recommend this film to anyone who’s a fan of the genre.
What I liked: Interesting premise, Unique perspective
What I liked less: Characters were a bit too stereotypical, Really no connection to the first film other than the name
Unfriended: Dark Web stars Colin Woodell as Matias, a man in his early twenties who is hard at work on an App that he hopes will allow him to better communicate with his deaf girlfriend Amaya (Stephanie Nogueras). His dedication to the app and his insistence on utilizing technology versus simply learning sign language has driven a wedge in their relationship and that lack of ability to communicate plays an important role in the film.
On what seems to be a typical game night of Cards Against Humanity (played on Skype because it’s too difficult for the gang to meet in person), Matias reveals that he has purchased a “new” laptop off Craigslist. While it is clearer and much faster than his previous computer, it regularly hangs and crashes while they are trying to play the game. While investigating the cause of the hang-ups, Matias uncovers a treasure trove of films that are hidden on the laptop. His curiosity gets the best of him and he begins to watch the films only to realize that he has fallen into a den of horror where people pay a lot of money to kill people off in very specific ways. Unfortunately, not only is he sharing what he has discovered with all his friends, but there are also other participants watching his every move.
Unfriended: Dark Web uses much of the same camera tricks that the original used. The entire movie is shot from the perspective of the audience watching the events unfold on the screen as if each were on their own laptop. The action takes place over Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Google and the fact that most people are familiar with these tools helps the audience feel like they are part of the events even more. By the end of the movie it is clear that you are as much of a participant in the horror that unfolds as the individuals participating via the Dark Web. I enjoyed the use of the various technologies to draw the viewer in as much as I did in the original Unfriended. It’s a very interesting and unique way to tell a story.
Unfriended: Dark Web certainly kept my interest throughout the film. I felt it took a little while to find it’s footing, but like a roller coaster with an extremely high climb, once you get over the hump it’s an exhilarating and fulfilling ride. While the technology used may be a bit exaggerated, it is realistic enough to give you that uneasy feeling that this could really happen. While it would take the uttermost bad luck for the events to happen in the perfect way as they do in the film, I enjoyed watching it all unfold. Even though I am still more afraid of my credit card information being sold on the Dark Web than the events of Unfriended happening, I would recommend this film to anyone who’s a fan of the genre.
What I liked: Interesting premise, Unique perspective
What I liked less: Characters were a bit too stereotypical, Really no connection to the first film other than the name
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Pretentious. Is a word that sends shivers down my spine much more than any pseudo horror movie. It conveys the idea that the creator of a work is out of control, resorting to shock value over intelligent content. If the creator meant it all, then it is not pretentious, only dangerous.
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Velocipastor (2018) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: The VelociPastor starts when Doug Jones (Cohan) whose parents are murdered leading to him to loses his faith, Father Stewart (Steere) sends him of a self-discovery holiday, which sees him head to China, when he returns he finds himself having horrendous nightmares and after he meets a hooker Carol (Kempinski), he tries to put everything together.
Once Doug learns that he can turn into a dinosaur, he works with Carol to fight crime to clean up his own town, including the man that murdered his parents.
Thoughts on The VelociPastor
Characters – Doug Jones is a priest that has followed God for years until his parents are murdered outside his church, he goes on a voyage of self-discovery in China, which sees him infected with an illness. Doug have the ability to turn into a dinosaur, where he decides to use this new power to fight crime in his town, getting revenge on the person who murdered his parents and bring down the drug lord. Carol is a local hooker that meets Doug and sees first-hand just what he is capable off, she pushes him into fighting crime, while she can handle herself in combat too. Father Stewart is the mentor of Doug, he has always helped him keep the faith and is willing to let him discover his faith once more. Wei Chan is the local drug lord that has been controlling the crime in the town, along with his ninjas he will be the fight Doug must take on.
Performances – This movie does have the over the top performances which does only help make things more entertaining, Greg Cohan in the leading role knowns when to hold things back before going over the top, which helps the character. Alyssa Kempinski is fun in her role, which brings the change in our lead character through the film. The whole cast know exactly the tone of this film and it shows in the their performances.
Story – The story here follows a priest that gets infected with something that turns him into a dinosaur and decides to go on to fight crime with this new ability. The first thing you must be prepared for is knowing that this film doesn’t take anything serious and is well aware that everything is as ridiculous as it sounds. The idea behind the film is truly original, it is purely fun and wildly over the top. If you do go into this story thinking you are getting something serious, you will be disappointed because this film is completely self-aware of what it is trying to tell.
Action/Comedy/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action in the film does play into the comedy, which is silly and over the top, which does include the dinosaur fighting ninja, which helps with the horror and sci-fi elements in the film.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, this does help with the idea of how silly this film takes itself without needing to go into anything too serious once again.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are practical, this again plays into the self-aware side of the film, which does show with the dinosaur suit fighting ninja.
Scene of the Movie – Dinosaur v ninjas.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The random Father Stewart backstory.
Final Thoughts – This is one if not the most self-aware movies you will see, it is so funny you can enjoy laughing through how ridiculous this film is.
Overall: Purely fun.
Once Doug learns that he can turn into a dinosaur, he works with Carol to fight crime to clean up his own town, including the man that murdered his parents.
Thoughts on The VelociPastor
Characters – Doug Jones is a priest that has followed God for years until his parents are murdered outside his church, he goes on a voyage of self-discovery in China, which sees him infected with an illness. Doug have the ability to turn into a dinosaur, where he decides to use this new power to fight crime in his town, getting revenge on the person who murdered his parents and bring down the drug lord. Carol is a local hooker that meets Doug and sees first-hand just what he is capable off, she pushes him into fighting crime, while she can handle herself in combat too. Father Stewart is the mentor of Doug, he has always helped him keep the faith and is willing to let him discover his faith once more. Wei Chan is the local drug lord that has been controlling the crime in the town, along with his ninjas he will be the fight Doug must take on.
Performances – This movie does have the over the top performances which does only help make things more entertaining, Greg Cohan in the leading role knowns when to hold things back before going over the top, which helps the character. Alyssa Kempinski is fun in her role, which brings the change in our lead character through the film. The whole cast know exactly the tone of this film and it shows in the their performances.
Story – The story here follows a priest that gets infected with something that turns him into a dinosaur and decides to go on to fight crime with this new ability. The first thing you must be prepared for is knowing that this film doesn’t take anything serious and is well aware that everything is as ridiculous as it sounds. The idea behind the film is truly original, it is purely fun and wildly over the top. If you do go into this story thinking you are getting something serious, you will be disappointed because this film is completely self-aware of what it is trying to tell.
Action/Comedy/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action in the film does play into the comedy, which is silly and over the top, which does include the dinosaur fighting ninja, which helps with the horror and sci-fi elements in the film.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, this does help with the idea of how silly this film takes itself without needing to go into anything too serious once again.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are practical, this again plays into the self-aware side of the film, which does show with the dinosaur suit fighting ninja.
Scene of the Movie – Dinosaur v ninjas.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The random Father Stewart backstory.
Final Thoughts – This is one if not the most self-aware movies you will see, it is so funny you can enjoy laughing through how ridiculous this film is.
Overall: Purely fun.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
The much anticipated new release, I was amazed that I managed to avoid seeing the trailer or spoilers (I even only vaguely saw the poster), and after seeing the film... I'm not sure that was entirely sensible, I should probably have knocked down my anticipation a bit by looking at all of it.
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
Not what I expected
I need to start off by saying that I wasnt a fan of Get Out, and I hadn't even see the trailer for Us, so I went into this with low/no expectations, and I was actually pleasantly surprised.
The first half an hour or so is a bit of a slow burn introduction to the family, almost lulling you into a false sense of security before abruptly flipping into full on horror film mode. There are a lot of things I liked about this film; it doesn't rely on obvious jump scares and instead focuses on being massively creepy and almost downright terrifying. I liked the pop culture references like Home Alone, and for me the bits of humour thrown in worked quite well to lighten up an otherwise tense film. And going against the usual horror movie tropes (I.e. victims not being so helpless after all) was refreshing. I also thought this was going to be a bog standard home invasion film, and it really isn't. The wider plot and story going on here is a great idea and the twist at the end too was brilliant, entirely unexpected and I usually pride myself on being able to spot these things coming a mile off.
However there are some things I really didn't like about this film which have led me to mark it down. The cast were great, but I could not stand the voice that Lupita Nyong'o gave Red. For me it wasn't creepy or scary, it was just silly and verging on the hysterically funny. I couldn't take her seriously every time she was speaking on screen. Also, I didn't like some of the more animalistic behaviours and vocalisms they gave the rest of the doppelgangers. It detracted from their overall creepy and terrifying appearance and I think they could have maybe made them a little quieter for a better effect. I hated the soundtrack - it seemed far too dramatic and over the top and not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. And I think the dancing scene in the final act, was very stylish but completely unnecessary and I found myself getting very irritated by it as it was just silly and a little confusing.
Overall this film isn't perfect by any means, but it was a lot better than I had ever expected. I feel like going into a film without having seen dozens of trailers etc beforehand actually makes for a far more enjoyable experience.
The first half an hour or so is a bit of a slow burn introduction to the family, almost lulling you into a false sense of security before abruptly flipping into full on horror film mode. There are a lot of things I liked about this film; it doesn't rely on obvious jump scares and instead focuses on being massively creepy and almost downright terrifying. I liked the pop culture references like Home Alone, and for me the bits of humour thrown in worked quite well to lighten up an otherwise tense film. And going against the usual horror movie tropes (I.e. victims not being so helpless after all) was refreshing. I also thought this was going to be a bog standard home invasion film, and it really isn't. The wider plot and story going on here is a great idea and the twist at the end too was brilliant, entirely unexpected and I usually pride myself on being able to spot these things coming a mile off.
However there are some things I really didn't like about this film which have led me to mark it down. The cast were great, but I could not stand the voice that Lupita Nyong'o gave Red. For me it wasn't creepy or scary, it was just silly and verging on the hysterically funny. I couldn't take her seriously every time she was speaking on screen. Also, I didn't like some of the more animalistic behaviours and vocalisms they gave the rest of the doppelgangers. It detracted from their overall creepy and terrifying appearance and I think they could have maybe made them a little quieter for a better effect. I hated the soundtrack - it seemed far too dramatic and over the top and not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. And I think the dancing scene in the final act, was very stylish but completely unnecessary and I found myself getting very irritated by it as it was just silly and a little confusing.
Overall this film isn't perfect by any means, but it was a lot better than I had ever expected. I feel like going into a film without having seen dozens of trailers etc beforehand actually makes for a far more enjoyable experience.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Oct 19, 2019
I like the idea of a horror superhero genre but...
Brightburn is a classic modern example of a great idea, with mediocre execution.
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Relic (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
The synopsis for Relic was intriguing and I was confident that I could cope with this sort of horror film... let's see how that went.
When Edna is reported missing her daughter, Kay, and grandaughter, Sam, drive to town to try and find out what has happened to her. Edna's mind is failing, but there's no sign of her until she reappears suddenly with no clue where she's been. Things are almost normal, but Edna's disposition changes, as does the house around her, until they're trapped inside and escaping seems like a distant hope.
The opening of Relic was very atmospheric and it quickly sets the scene for the film, the family dynamic is clear, and the way the house is captured makes a great start at illustrating the toxicity. I had thought that knowing so much about what the film intended on doing was going to take me out of it, but it actually means you can focus on what is happening rather than trying to figure it all out as you go.
The house becomes a bit of an enigma as it evolves, and it's a clever use of the subject matter. I'm hoping that this gets a blu-ray release and we get a "making of" featurette because it feels like the process of crafting the house, and the vision of it, would be an interesting watch in itself.
Each of the three leading ladies has a very individual personality, and the generational divide is well defined. Robyn Nevin jumps backwards and forwards from normal granny to possessed being with amazing skill, and both Emily Mortimer and Bella Heathcote manage to combine the familial care and worry with the horror of the reality in their situation. It's a great team of actresses and the constantly changing dynamics between them are handled so well.
It's an intriguing take on a subject matter that we're all familiar with seeing in a dramatic setting, and it's perfectly suited to this genre. The story in Relic is a perfect way to describe the disease and the way it affects its sufferers and those around them.
My only quibble about the film is the ending. I understood what it all stood for (I think I did at least) but the way it portrayed didn't fit with everything else. That single scene really knocked me out of it, which was a little disappointing, but thankfully it didn't take too much away from what I'd already seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/relic-movie-review.html
When Edna is reported missing her daughter, Kay, and grandaughter, Sam, drive to town to try and find out what has happened to her. Edna's mind is failing, but there's no sign of her until she reappears suddenly with no clue where she's been. Things are almost normal, but Edna's disposition changes, as does the house around her, until they're trapped inside and escaping seems like a distant hope.
The opening of Relic was very atmospheric and it quickly sets the scene for the film, the family dynamic is clear, and the way the house is captured makes a great start at illustrating the toxicity. I had thought that knowing so much about what the film intended on doing was going to take me out of it, but it actually means you can focus on what is happening rather than trying to figure it all out as you go.
The house becomes a bit of an enigma as it evolves, and it's a clever use of the subject matter. I'm hoping that this gets a blu-ray release and we get a "making of" featurette because it feels like the process of crafting the house, and the vision of it, would be an interesting watch in itself.
Each of the three leading ladies has a very individual personality, and the generational divide is well defined. Robyn Nevin jumps backwards and forwards from normal granny to possessed being with amazing skill, and both Emily Mortimer and Bella Heathcote manage to combine the familial care and worry with the horror of the reality in their situation. It's a great team of actresses and the constantly changing dynamics between them are handled so well.
It's an intriguing take on a subject matter that we're all familiar with seeing in a dramatic setting, and it's perfectly suited to this genre. The story in Relic is a perfect way to describe the disease and the way it affects its sufferers and those around them.
My only quibble about the film is the ending. I understood what it all stood for (I think I did at least) but the way it portrayed didn't fit with everything else. That single scene really knocked me out of it, which was a little disappointing, but thankfully it didn't take too much away from what I'd already seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/relic-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Navy Seals vs. Zombies (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – LT Pete Cunningham is leading the Navy SEALS, he must put his trust in the newest member of the team in AJ, while trying to get the team through the hordes of zombies to prove once again that his team in the elite military team. Commander Sheer is running the operations from the military base, he doesn’t want to see his men take any unnecessary risks. VP Bentley is the man the team are sent to rescue, he is in the running for the next presidential race. AJ is he newest member of the SEALS team, he is about to become a father and this is his first mission as part of the team, where he must prove himself to the rest of the unit.
Performances – The performances in the film suffer because of the lack of interesting non-generic characters. none of the actors get a chance to show their skills as performers, with large parts of the film just being headless running around.
Story – The story here follows a Navy SEALS unit that must go into Baton Rouge to rescue the Vice president and the scientists behind the outbreak. This is everything a zombie story has given us before, we have a group of people running around a city trying to elude the zombies that outnumber them. We know the team will dwindle down as the film unfolds which is the normal. The starting point for the weaknesses comes from that fact this story is set in a world where zombie film don’t exist, which is clear by all the behaviour through the film. Most of the actual storytelling is saved for the closing of the film which fills in most of the blanks we don’t mention until then.
Action/Horror – The action in the film is just shooting zombies, it is nothing new and becomes overly repetitive after a while. The horror side of the film gives us zombies that run, they never feel like a threat to the anybody.
Settings – The film is set in Baton Rouge, which is considered a military area, I think, the truth is, it could have been any city without any major locations being shown.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are weak with even basic door explosion looking weak, the zombie look is acceptable for a low budget film.
Scene of the Movie – The explaining.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The stupid decisions.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic zombie film that offers nothing new to the genre, it I filled with stupid decisions and generic action.
Overall: Basic zombie nonsense.
Performances – The performances in the film suffer because of the lack of interesting non-generic characters. none of the actors get a chance to show their skills as performers, with large parts of the film just being headless running around.
Story – The story here follows a Navy SEALS unit that must go into Baton Rouge to rescue the Vice president and the scientists behind the outbreak. This is everything a zombie story has given us before, we have a group of people running around a city trying to elude the zombies that outnumber them. We know the team will dwindle down as the film unfolds which is the normal. The starting point for the weaknesses comes from that fact this story is set in a world where zombie film don’t exist, which is clear by all the behaviour through the film. Most of the actual storytelling is saved for the closing of the film which fills in most of the blanks we don’t mention until then.
Action/Horror – The action in the film is just shooting zombies, it is nothing new and becomes overly repetitive after a while. The horror side of the film gives us zombies that run, they never feel like a threat to the anybody.
Settings – The film is set in Baton Rouge, which is considered a military area, I think, the truth is, it could have been any city without any major locations being shown.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are weak with even basic door explosion looking weak, the zombie look is acceptable for a low budget film.
Scene of the Movie – The explaining.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The stupid decisions.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic zombie film that offers nothing new to the genre, it I filled with stupid decisions and generic action.
Overall: Basic zombie nonsense.