Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Park (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, this is going to be awash with spoilers because I was absolutely amazed by the reaction I had to it. It's not unheard of for movies to turn out differently to how the trailer portrays them but in this case it felt like a rather low blow. I think there should have been some clues to what lay ahead without having to read reviews.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Expanse in TV
Sep 4, 2020 (Updated Feb 11, 2021)
In this particular future, where there exists a cold war tension between the splintered factions of humanity across the solar system, all is not well. Earthers, Dusters (Martians) and Skinnies (Belters) compete for resources and political strength in an ever shifting landscape of trust and betrayal. It is a sci-fi geek’s paradise, full of believable tech, an extensive character list and jargon coming out of the wazoo! It’s all very complicated… and season five just finished airing on Amazon Prime on Wednesday 3rd Feb, so I thought it a good time to talk about it in detail.
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Dance of the Dead (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Jimmy Dunn (Jared Kusnitz) never seems to take anything seriously. He likes to spend more time in detention than he does in class. So it’s no surprise that Lindsey (Greyson Chadwick), the girl Jimmy was going to take to prom, decides to not go with him after realizing that Jimmy has no ambition. To make matters worse, something weird is going on in the graveyard next to the nuclear power plant in town. The dead are walking and they’re headed to the prom. The town is now in the hands of the losers who couldn’t get dates to the prom. There goes the neighborhood and here comes the pain; that is something that is certainly meant in more ways than one.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Down These Strange Streets in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This anthology gathers stories from authors who normally write in various genres. The commonality is that each story is a mystery, and there's a fantastic twist to each. Martin's introduction calls such stories the "bastard stepchild" of mystery and horror.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.