Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
A fantastic gem of a thriller.
Let it be known, regardless of it's connection to Cloverfield, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a pretty solid thriller in its own right.
After walking away from a relationship, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) ends up in a car crash and is knocked unconscious.
She wakes up shortly afterwards, apparently rescued, but chained to the wall in a closed off room.
She has been rescued by Howard (John Goodman) and is being kept in his nuclear bunker.
Whilst she has been unconscious, there has been some kind of attack and Howard claims that the air up on the surface is unbreathable.
As Michelle adjusts to her new life underground, she becomes suspicious to Howard's claims and starts to believe he's hiding something.
10 Cloverfield Lane is absolutely dripping with tension for the majority of the runtime.
John Goodman is absolute fantastic and unpredictable. His character is both caring, and dangerous simultaneously.
Mary EW is also great in her role, and the two of them alongside John Gallagher Jr, make up a pretty solid trio of well fleshed out characters.
As the movie reaches it's climax, you'll be on the edge of your seat.
The connections to Cloverfield become more apparent near the movies finale, and do feel a little tacked on (this movie did start out as a non-Cloverfield related thriller called The Cellar) but it actually works in a neat sci-fi way.
It would be nice though, to see it all tied together a little tighter in future installments.
After walking away from a relationship, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) ends up in a car crash and is knocked unconscious.
She wakes up shortly afterwards, apparently rescued, but chained to the wall in a closed off room.
She has been rescued by Howard (John Goodman) and is being kept in his nuclear bunker.
Whilst she has been unconscious, there has been some kind of attack and Howard claims that the air up on the surface is unbreathable.
As Michelle adjusts to her new life underground, she becomes suspicious to Howard's claims and starts to believe he's hiding something.
10 Cloverfield Lane is absolutely dripping with tension for the majority of the runtime.
John Goodman is absolute fantastic and unpredictable. His character is both caring, and dangerous simultaneously.
Mary EW is also great in her role, and the two of them alongside John Gallagher Jr, make up a pretty solid trio of well fleshed out characters.
As the movie reaches it's climax, you'll be on the edge of your seat.
The connections to Cloverfield become more apparent near the movies finale, and do feel a little tacked on (this movie did start out as a non-Cloverfield related thriller called The Cellar) but it actually works in a neat sci-fi way.
It would be nice though, to see it all tied together a little tighter in future installments.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Entertaining
Contains spoilers, click to show
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I’d already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don’t want to risk mild spoilage.
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn (2 more)
Badass fight choreography
Some really cool action sequences
I wasn't a fan of the self narration the entire film. (2 more)
I also didn't like the Tarantino-ish way of chopping up the story and going back and forth the way they did.
I feel like every character in this movie was underutilized and could have been done better or had better character development.
Birds of a Feather Can't Stick Their Landing On This One
Contains spoilers, click to show
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a 2020 action super hero film. Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is a follow-up to Suicide Squad (2016). The movie was directed by Cathy Yan and written by Christina Hodson, and it stars Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ewan McGregor.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Unique And Visceral Experience
Love, Death, & Robots is an adult animated anthology tv series on Netflix. The series is produced by Joshua Donen, David Fincher, Jennifer Miller, and Tim Miller. Each of the 18 episodes released on the first season was animated by different crews from a range of countries. It's also a re-imagining of 1981 animated sci-fi film Heavy Metal. Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Topher Grace, Gary Cole, Samira Wiley, and Stefan Kapicic.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Not even two Will Smiths can save it.
"Gemini Man (2019)" is a blend of action, drama, crime and sci-fi, and tells the story of Henry Brogan (portrayed by Will Smith), the world's most renowned assassin who is looking to retire from the government agency he's been working for.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 10 Cloverfield Lane starts as we see Michelle (Winstead) walking away from her married life with Ben only to find herself in a car accident. Upon waking up she finds her chained up in a bed as she desperately looks for a way out. Michelle’s capturer is Howard (Goodman) who claims to have saved her from an attack on America. Michelle isn’t the only other person in the bunker with Emmett (Gallagher Jr) also there.
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a woman with many complications as we meet her just as she is leaving her engagement ring and fiancé behind to head off to a new future. We do not know what promoted this move other than an argument, but Michelle is unmoved by his plea-laden phone calls and opts to ignore them and move ahead with her life.
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/