Search
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Visuals (1 more)
Action
A true monster of a movie!
This sequel to the 2014 reboot of Godzilla is an enjoyable movie. It doesn't follow the common trend of "less is more", not wasting any time showing you the visually stunning monsters in all their glory.
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
Awix (3310 KP) rated Gamera: Guardian of the Universe (1995) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018 (Updated Feb 14, 2018)
Turtle Recall
Hugely confident reinvention not just of Gamera the flying turtle but also, maybe, the whole kaiju movie genre. Japan is plagued by man-eating Gyaos birds, finds unexpected assistance when floating island turns out to be giant flying turtle with plasma fireball breath. Stage is set for climactic showdown between Gamera and the last, colossal Gyaos in downtown Tokyo (of course).
Altogether much lighter on its feet than Toho's Godzilla movies from the same period; makers have clearly studied the tropes of the genre and reinvent and deploy them to great effect. Hugely enjoyable monster action sequences, solid work from the human cast as well (Steven Seagal's daughter Ayako Fujitani is clearly the one in the family with acting talent). The two sequels are possibly even better.
Altogether much lighter on its feet than Toho's Godzilla movies from the same period; makers have clearly studied the tropes of the genre and reinvent and deploy them to great effect. Hugely enjoyable monster action sequences, solid work from the human cast as well (Steven Seagal's daughter Ayako Fujitani is clearly the one in the family with acting talent). The two sequels are possibly even better.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) created a post in Dear Smashbomb....
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) created a post
Jan 18, 2019
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Blood on Satan's Claw (1971) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
What's In A Name?
One of the big three British folk-horror movies (along with Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man) and the only one to go for an explicitly supernatural storyline: in 18th century England, a ploughman unearths a deformed skull, which mysteriously disappears soon after. Insanity, mutation and violence begin to spread amongst the young people of the area, forcing the local judge to take extreme measures in the cause of virtue.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
Troy Aker (6 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Dec 13, 2017
Much fun from JJ Abrams
With Super 8, JJ Abrams did something I feel is rare in cinema. It was a monster movie in which you actually care about the people involved. Way too often in movies it becomes easy to cheer on the monster because the people involved just aren't likable, or that not enough time is spent on them to create a connection with the characters. A character driven monster-disaster movie is rare. This movie is the anti-Michael Bay movie. Which is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Invisible Man (1933) in Movies
Mar 4, 2020
Universal Monster
This movie is such a classic, it came out after dracula, frankenstein and the mummy. Out of all the universal monster movies, i like this one the most. It combines sci-fi, horror, psychological espects, and overall the invisible man just being a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway. This classic movie is based off of a H.G. Wells novel, and if you dont know who that is, look him up..."The War of the Worlds".
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018) in Movies
Jul 31, 2018
More of the same as the cast of the Hotel decide to go on vacation (the family decide to take all their friends obviously), on a cruise ship.
The overall plot was OK, but quote obvious, but the humour was definitely turned down compared to previous films in the series.
And what is with the obligatory DJ battle scenes?! Does Sandler have a load of low quality dance tracks he has to shoe-horn into movies as part of his contract now?! Just a total nonsense ending.
Having said that, my kids loved it.
I think I have unconsciously removed a couple of marks simply because my kids insisted on replicating the finale's dance moves for the next three hours (this makes me sound like a monster but once you know what that involves you'll understand!).
The overall plot was OK, but quote obvious, but the humour was definitely turned down compared to previous films in the series.
And what is with the obligatory DJ battle scenes?! Does Sandler have a load of low quality dance tracks he has to shoe-horn into movies as part of his contract now?! Just a total nonsense ending.
Having said that, my kids loved it.
I think I have unconsciously removed a couple of marks simply because my kids insisted on replicating the finale's dance moves for the next three hours (this makes me sound like a monster but once you know what that involves you'll understand!).
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Firewall (2006) in Movies
May 26, 2020 (Updated May 26, 2020)
We've Seen This Done Before: A Dozen Times
Firewall- is a movie, that I fell like I've seen, watched oe heard of before. Thats because it is. Cause you will get these types of movies mixed up. Hostage and negotitation movies, cause their all the same.
If you like or seen "John Q", "Hostage", "Inside Man", "The Town", "The Negotitaor" and "Money Monster". Than you kinda of like this one. The Problem is that, movies like "Inside Man", "The Town" and "John Q" are better. The other problem with this one is that, the final battle just ends so quickly, badly and pointless. Like the bad guy just dies and than boom end. What?? The whole movie was building up suspense between the main charcter and bad guy, and than he just dies with one hit/blow and thats it. The whole movie felt pointless, because of that. The whole suspense just gone, you felt nothing. Felt like the whole movie was pointless and it was.
The plot: Bank security expert Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) builds a career on his expertise in designing theft-proof computer systems for financial institutions. However, a criminal mastermind (Paul Bettany) kidnaps his family, and he must work feverishly to find a way to break into his own system and steal $100 million, for the lives of his loved ones hang in the balance.
Paul Bettany was excellet as the villian.
Other than that, this movie is a decent suspense thriller and that has a bad ending that makes this whole movie pointless.
If you like or seen "John Q", "Hostage", "Inside Man", "The Town", "The Negotitaor" and "Money Monster". Than you kinda of like this one. The Problem is that, movies like "Inside Man", "The Town" and "John Q" are better. The other problem with this one is that, the final battle just ends so quickly, badly and pointless. Like the bad guy just dies and than boom end. What?? The whole movie was building up suspense between the main charcter and bad guy, and than he just dies with one hit/blow and thats it. The whole movie felt pointless, because of that. The whole suspense just gone, you felt nothing. Felt like the whole movie was pointless and it was.
The plot: Bank security expert Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) builds a career on his expertise in designing theft-proof computer systems for financial institutions. However, a criminal mastermind (Paul Bettany) kidnaps his family, and he must work feverishly to find a way to break into his own system and steal $100 million, for the lives of his loved ones hang in the balance.
Paul Bettany was excellet as the villian.
Other than that, this movie is a decent suspense thriller and that has a bad ending that makes this whole movie pointless.