Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Can anyone ever say the name of this film without finger snapping?
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Fall in Books
Jan 23, 2020
*puts on best announcer voice* Ahem.
I'd like to present to you the <b>most confusing book of the year</b>, <i>The Fall</i> by Bethany Griffin. It's a <b>very odd and peculiar book </b>based on Edgar Allen Poe's short story, <i>The Fall of the House of Usher</i>. In Griffin's retelling, Madeline Usher believes that she can break the curse on the Ushers, but then she wakes up in a fabulously claustrophobic box called a coffin.
In all seriousness, <i>The Fall</i> is actually <b>a retelling on one of Poe's stories </b>that I didn't actually read, but watched instead (so bad, it was good). From reading the synopsis of Griffin's retelling, <b>it sounded like Madeline Usher had spent most of her life trying to break free from the curse.</b>
I ended up with something different. At least, that's what I would probably end up with if I actually made it to the end of the book, which I chose not to. I totally admit I peeked at the last few pages just to see what would happen, and it was nothing special.
<b>Griffin starts us out right when Madeline wakes up in a coffin. The rest of the book, however, is all flashback from Madeline's childhood, starting from when she was nine. It's a little out of order, but has a pattern to it in a way</b> – one chapter is nine, the next is fifteen, and occasionally there's a diary/journal entry from Lisbeth Usher. I'm no fan of chapters being even remotely out of order (they can get confusing when you're busy and come back to the story a few days later), but <b>at least Griffin had a pattern.</b>
At least, until about page 150. <b>WHERE IS THIRTEEN AND WHY ARE YOU SKIPPED.</b>
Of course, we go back to thirteen in the next chapter and continue the pattern. In my little game of peek-ahead, I found out <b>there <i>is</i> no particular pattern. My hypothesis to all this is Griffin portraying Madeline's madness increasing as her age increases. As Madeline grows older, she becomes madder. </b>How's that for implementing science?
Anyways, about 50 pages later, I'm pretty much going, "Your point is..?" in a very uninterested mental voice that may or may not include a mental eye roll or two in the process. Here's all that I've found out from what I read:
<ol>
<li>Madeline wakes up in a coffin – Go figure.</li>
<li>She and her brother Roderick is cursed – Knew that.</li>
<li>The House of Usher is, well, alive – Knew that.</li>
<li>The House of Usher is malicious – Knew that, but this was ten times creepier from the cheesy short film.</li>
<li>Madeline has a desire to break the curse on her family – It's very subtle.</li>
</ol>
In the long run, <b><i>The Fall</i> is written in a scattered format (see my hypothesis!) to emphasize the fact that the House of Usher is alive, malicious, and will do <i>anything</i> to keep an Usher within its walls for all eternity. It's nothing remotely impressive if you read or watched the original.</b>
And this is when the book club kills me.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-fall-by-bethany-griffin/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I'd like to present to you the <b>most confusing book of the year</b>, <i>The Fall</i> by Bethany Griffin. It's a <b>very odd and peculiar book </b>based on Edgar Allen Poe's short story, <i>The Fall of the House of Usher</i>. In Griffin's retelling, Madeline Usher believes that she can break the curse on the Ushers, but then she wakes up in a fabulously claustrophobic box called a coffin.
In all seriousness, <i>The Fall</i> is actually <b>a retelling on one of Poe's stories </b>that I didn't actually read, but watched instead (so bad, it was good). From reading the synopsis of Griffin's retelling, <b>it sounded like Madeline Usher had spent most of her life trying to break free from the curse.</b>
I ended up with something different. At least, that's what I would probably end up with if I actually made it to the end of the book, which I chose not to. I totally admit I peeked at the last few pages just to see what would happen, and it was nothing special.
<b>Griffin starts us out right when Madeline wakes up in a coffin. The rest of the book, however, is all flashback from Madeline's childhood, starting from when she was nine. It's a little out of order, but has a pattern to it in a way</b> – one chapter is nine, the next is fifteen, and occasionally there's a diary/journal entry from Lisbeth Usher. I'm no fan of chapters being even remotely out of order (they can get confusing when you're busy and come back to the story a few days later), but <b>at least Griffin had a pattern.</b>
At least, until about page 150. <b>WHERE IS THIRTEEN AND WHY ARE YOU SKIPPED.</b>
Of course, we go back to thirteen in the next chapter and continue the pattern. In my little game of peek-ahead, I found out <b>there <i>is</i> no particular pattern. My hypothesis to all this is Griffin portraying Madeline's madness increasing as her age increases. As Madeline grows older, she becomes madder. </b>How's that for implementing science?
Anyways, about 50 pages later, I'm pretty much going, "Your point is..?" in a very uninterested mental voice that may or may not include a mental eye roll or two in the process. Here's all that I've found out from what I read:
<ol>
<li>Madeline wakes up in a coffin – Go figure.</li>
<li>She and her brother Roderick is cursed – Knew that.</li>
<li>The House of Usher is, well, alive – Knew that.</li>
<li>The House of Usher is malicious – Knew that, but this was ten times creepier from the cheesy short film.</li>
<li>Madeline has a desire to break the curse on her family – It's very subtle.</li>
</ol>
In the long run, <b><i>The Fall</i> is written in a scattered format (see my hypothesis!) to emphasize the fact that the House of Usher is alive, malicious, and will do <i>anything</i> to keep an Usher within its walls for all eternity. It's nothing remotely impressive if you read or watched the original.</b>
And this is when the book club kills me.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-fall-by-bethany-griffin/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
Ian Malcolm Should Have Left Them On the Island
Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a twelve-year-old in 1997: “Oh man, I can’t wait to check out all this dino action! Raptors for life!” Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a thirty-five-year-old in 2019: “Why the hell are they going back to the island? These people clearly have a death wish!” Yes, the sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made sees a return to the dinosaur madness as a special team led by Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm goes on a mission for Jurassic Park’s creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough).
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Spill yer beans
The Lighthouse is cinematic perfection that will leave anyone that lets it engulf thier mind and senses broken, disturbed, traumatised and violated. An experience like no other I can not stress enough that everyone must whitness this utter masterpiece. Primarily a character study about two lighthouse keepers descent into madness however the way the film depicts this reaches far deeper than I ever even imagined it would. (Possible spoilers ahead) Theres an unquestionable comparison to Greek mythology here and as the film plays out Willem Dafoe character draws several comparisons to King Trident, Zeus and Minos but ultimatly ends up becoming one of his own 'God of the lighthouse' keeping his prized possession locked away at the top of his tower. Robert Pattison also compares to the Titan Prometheus trying to steel this possesion/fire from this so called god. He can also be compared to Icarus trapped in a tower by a mean man with no means of escape and Odysseus constantly distracted/infatuated with the Sirens surrounding the lighthouse. I found these comparisions integrated into the story beautifully and theres constant fable/mythological imagry to reinforce these comparisons too which is hauntingly striking and terrifyingly prominent. Atmosphere is pin sharp here and as these two men begin to break you feel everything that starts to grate on them bombarding your senses as a viewr too. Everything is communicated flawlessly to really draw the viewer in as if we too are stuck with these to men feeling evrything build up, irritate, torment and add to the degradation of the mind until it hits its breaking point. Floors creaking & bowing, metal bending and screeching, wind howling, waves crashing, rain beating down, shutters rattling and birds squawking its intense and realistic sound design thats for sure. Mix this with a constant sence of dread from the narrow corridors, looming shadows, low lighting, claustrophobic living quaters, fog, harsh weather, mud, anoying seagulls, restricted views, countless foul smells, hard back breaking work, sexual frustrations, loneliness and alcohol its enough to make anyone go insane and as the film plays out cabin fever really intensifies (especially for us with the film being shot in black and white and with a smaller aspect ratio). This is some of the best acting ive seen for sure both Dafoe and Pattison portray these characters so well that you would be convinced you were watching historic archive footage of two people cooped up. Both are devious liars, have vicious tempers and nasty streaks as well as mysterious pasts and both are also constantly in a fight for dominance of the lighthouse and the secrets it holds. In this day and age The lighthouse is such a true gem to behold and is so unique and engrossing you would swear it transported you back in time while watching it. I also did not expect this film to take the turn it does half way through either almost becoming a distressing horror movie and as intense as a tesuo film and as my friend and me left the screening we found ourselves deeply disturbed/traumatised with our hearts pounding from what we had just been exposed to. Disgustingly intense, depressingly dripping in sadness, brutaly violent and deeply unsettling the lighthouse is one hell of a movie and may just be one of the best movies I have ever seen, it really is without a doubt a cinema experience I will certainly never forget. Comparable to the witch, the turin horse and apocalypse now the lighthouse deserves all the praise its been getting and more. Stunning.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Skoove - Learn Piano
Education and Music
App
Learn piano with Skoove. Have you always wanted to play piano, but didn’t know where to start?...
Bloons TD 4 HD
Games
App
Update News: new winter track & challenges, celebrating the release of Bloons TD 5 on iPad! We are...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Bloons TD 4
Games
App
Version 3.6 is now live featuring a brand new track and 2 new challenges. Update history: 3.5 -...
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
An Explosive and Provocative Journey
Few films have managed to spark as much debate and cultural impact as David Fincher’s Fight Club. Released in 1999, this dark and audacious psychological thriller quickly evolved from a divisive box office release to a bona fide cult classic. Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, Fight Club is more than just a movie—it’s an exploration of identity, consumerism, and the hidden chaos lurking within us all. Fincher’s meticulous direction, coupled with outstanding performances by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, makes Fight Club a visceral and thought-provoking cinematic ride that lingers long after the credits roll.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.