Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream 2 (1997) in Movies
May 9, 2020
Scream 2 is a great example of a sequel done right. It was released just a year after the well received first film, and doesn't deviate from the formula that made Scream such a hit.
It's still very self aware, it's gory, and retains the comedic edge nicely.
Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, and Jamie Kennedy all return for another round, and are just as likable as they were before. This cast clearly enjoyed their time making these films, and they are joined by the like of Sarah Michelle Gellar, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett-Smith, and Jerry O'Connell. A pretty solid cast all in all.
Ghostface continues to be a bizzarre icon in the horror genre, managing to be unsettling, and subtly ludicrous at the same time. The way that he stumbles and crashes into things whilst chasing people lends a pretty psychotic edge to his potentially goofy asthethic.
The plot predictably becomes rather silly towards the climax, but honestly, I can't really complain. Scream 2 is really fun follow up to a horror classic and deserves the praise it gets.
It's still very self aware, it's gory, and retains the comedic edge nicely.
Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, and Jamie Kennedy all return for another round, and are just as likable as they were before. This cast clearly enjoyed their time making these films, and they are joined by the like of Sarah Michelle Gellar, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett-Smith, and Jerry O'Connell. A pretty solid cast all in all.
Ghostface continues to be a bizzarre icon in the horror genre, managing to be unsettling, and subtly ludicrous at the same time. The way that he stumbles and crashes into things whilst chasing people lends a pretty psychotic edge to his potentially goofy asthethic.
The plot predictably becomes rather silly towards the climax, but honestly, I can't really complain. Scream 2 is really fun follow up to a horror classic and deserves the praise it gets.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream (1996) in Movies
Apr 22, 2020 (Updated May 9, 2020)
1996 was a time where slasher horror had become boring. The quality of countless sequels for certain franchises had dipped dramatically, and Wes Craven intended to give the whole thing a jump start with Scream. It's safe to say that he succeeded in that respect.
I was 8 years old when Scream release, and I remember the buzz around it. Other kids in my school would talk about how their older siblings had managed to rent a copy, and just how shocking it was, and in the years since it released, Scream has gone from that excitable buzz to a bonafide genre classic.
Obviously, the screenplays self awareness was a game changer. Characters constantly talking about horror movie 'rules' whilst doing the exact opposite, dialogue about upcoming sequels etc. Even the antagonist Ghostface has a slightly goofy look, and it's this tongue in cheek approach that was immediately imitated by others, although never quite as well.
That's not to say that Scream doesn't have it's fair share of horror. It's a bloody film for sure, and even though it's scares aren't major by today's standards, it's easy to see why it gained the clout it did.
The cast is headed up by Neve Campbell, as extremely likable final girl Sidney Prescott. Sidney is fleshed out enough for the viewer to really get inside, and isn't just there for eye candy. She is joined by the likes of Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy and Drew Barrymore in an all round decent cast.
Honestly though, I can't heap enough praise at Matthew Lillard for his absolute batshit crazy performance. Guy deserves more recognition for that commitment.
Scream isn't the best horror movie I've ever seen, but as I said above, it's a genre classic, and certainly changed the face of horror. A definite win for Wes Craven.
I was 8 years old when Scream release, and I remember the buzz around it. Other kids in my school would talk about how their older siblings had managed to rent a copy, and just how shocking it was, and in the years since it released, Scream has gone from that excitable buzz to a bonafide genre classic.
Obviously, the screenplays self awareness was a game changer. Characters constantly talking about horror movie 'rules' whilst doing the exact opposite, dialogue about upcoming sequels etc. Even the antagonist Ghostface has a slightly goofy look, and it's this tongue in cheek approach that was immediately imitated by others, although never quite as well.
That's not to say that Scream doesn't have it's fair share of horror. It's a bloody film for sure, and even though it's scares aren't major by today's standards, it's easy to see why it gained the clout it did.
The cast is headed up by Neve Campbell, as extremely likable final girl Sidney Prescott. Sidney is fleshed out enough for the viewer to really get inside, and isn't just there for eye candy. She is joined by the likes of Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy and Drew Barrymore in an all round decent cast.
Honestly though, I can't heap enough praise at Matthew Lillard for his absolute batshit crazy performance. Guy deserves more recognition for that commitment.
Scream isn't the best horror movie I've ever seen, but as I said above, it's a genre classic, and certainly changed the face of horror. A definite win for Wes Craven.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)