Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) in Movies
Jul 30, 2020
Slightly discombobulating horror sequel. Following the events of the first movie Kirsty Cotton unsurprisingly ends up in a loony bin run by brain surgeon and keen puzzle-box fan Dr Channard (Kenneth Cranham tries mightily to bring a touch of Peter Cushing-style class to an underwritten part). As Channard is a lunatic, he resurrects Kirsty's evil stepmother, and because he is clearly either very forgetful or slow off the mark, together they give a puzzle box (which he already had) to a traumatised patient who's good at puzzles (who he likewise already had about the place) and together they begin to explore the realm of the box.
Meanwhile... oh, does it really matter? As you can perhaps begin to discern, the plot of Hellraiser II Makes No Sense Whatsoever (the Cotton house appears to have teleported from London to New York City in the gap between films, and this is only a minor issue), and there is something baffling and miraculous about the fact the film is as coherent and watchable as it is. Then again, it's not actually about logic, plot, or the motivation of the characters, just a succession of grisly, visceral, nightmarish, surreal images. In this respect at least the film is an astonishing success. Doesn't stop the story from being nonsense, though. Manages to be a very bad movie but also a terrific one, frequently at exactly the same time. Like I say, discombobulating.
Meanwhile... oh, does it really matter? As you can perhaps begin to discern, the plot of Hellraiser II Makes No Sense Whatsoever (the Cotton house appears to have teleported from London to New York City in the gap between films, and this is only a minor issue), and there is something baffling and miraculous about the fact the film is as coherent and watchable as it is. Then again, it's not actually about logic, plot, or the motivation of the characters, just a succession of grisly, visceral, nightmarish, surreal images. In this respect at least the film is an astonishing success. Doesn't stop the story from being nonsense, though. Manages to be a very bad movie but also a terrific one, frequently at exactly the same time. Like I say, discombobulating.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Two worlds, One hero
Thor is presented with a difficult challenge - believably incorporating a god into the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has already been established. This task falls to director Kenneth Branagh, who devotes sufficient time to both Asgard, Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) home realm, and Earth, where he is exiled to. Asgard is depicted through a heavy use of special effects which creates a sense of wonder, but the story is steeped in relatable familial issues. When Thor disobeys his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), he is cast to Earth as a mortal. His hammer, Mjolnir, is the source of his powers, and it is also sent to Earth to await someone worthy enough to wield such power.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.