Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Dawn of the Dead (1978) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
Dawn of the Dead is considered by many to be the cream of the crop when it comes to zombie movies.
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a starting note, please please please watch this film with the audio set to Polish with subtitles. Netflix started playing the dubbed version for me, and I managed about 30 seconds worth of cheesy American voice over before I couldn't stand it any longer. It's 100% more natural the way it was intended.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Smallfoot (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019 (Updated Sep 2, 2019)
Yikes
I, like many of you, really like comic books. So in this day and age, where films like Elektra, The Spirit, Catwoman, Daredevil etc, are just a horrible joyless memory, it takes something truly special to make you nearly hate comic book movies forevermore.
Suicide Squad is that something truly special.
After being saddened by the underwhelming Batman vs Superman, I had my hopes set high for SS. The trailers looked fantastic. I couldn't wait to see characters such as Katana, Enchantress, Harley Quinn, Deadshot etc, finally have their moment in the spotlight. I couldn't wait to see what Jared Leto brought to the table as The Joker. I was ready to be shown that BvS was a one off misstep, and that the DCEU properties were ready to take their place amongst comic book film royalty.
I'm almost cross at myself for being so very silly.
Where to begin - I guess characters.
I have no problem with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I thought she was fine. The script is terrible in places but that's not her fault.
Another character that suffers from the script is Deadshot. Again, I have no problem with Will Smith (except that the movie threatens to become the Will Smith show on occasion), but the script turns him into a tool to spout one liners and name check the movies title.
Enchantress is just a weird gyrating CGI embarrassment that is given little room to do anything else.
Everyone else is a waste - Katana, Killer Croc, Diablo - all so boring.
Same goes for Boomerang (although I get the feeling that Jai Courtney genuinely tried his best with what he was given)
And then there's The Joker. I can't honestly tell whether I liked him or not - he was hardly in it! Although his brief appearance was more interesting than the rest of the film for sure.
The whole film is set to a soundtrack of 'cool' rock songs that I would have put on a mixtape when I was 12, and they're relentless. It feels like every two minutes another song is obnoxiously blasted into my poor eyes and ears.
The film feels like one huge trailer. It's edited and chopped up jarringly, and it's a film that evidently has suffered from re shoots and studio meddling.
I refuse to believe that the same man who directed the damn good 'Fury' is solely responsible for this car crash.
Hopefully, James Gunn can keep the suits at bay and deliver a home run with the next attempt...
Suicide Squad is that something truly special.
After being saddened by the underwhelming Batman vs Superman, I had my hopes set high for SS. The trailers looked fantastic. I couldn't wait to see characters such as Katana, Enchantress, Harley Quinn, Deadshot etc, finally have their moment in the spotlight. I couldn't wait to see what Jared Leto brought to the table as The Joker. I was ready to be shown that BvS was a one off misstep, and that the DCEU properties were ready to take their place amongst comic book film royalty.
I'm almost cross at myself for being so very silly.
Where to begin - I guess characters.
I have no problem with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I thought she was fine. The script is terrible in places but that's not her fault.
Another character that suffers from the script is Deadshot. Again, I have no problem with Will Smith (except that the movie threatens to become the Will Smith show on occasion), but the script turns him into a tool to spout one liners and name check the movies title.
Enchantress is just a weird gyrating CGI embarrassment that is given little room to do anything else.
Everyone else is a waste - Katana, Killer Croc, Diablo - all so boring.
Same goes for Boomerang (although I get the feeling that Jai Courtney genuinely tried his best with what he was given)
And then there's The Joker. I can't honestly tell whether I liked him or not - he was hardly in it! Although his brief appearance was more interesting than the rest of the film for sure.
The whole film is set to a soundtrack of 'cool' rock songs that I would have put on a mixtape when I was 12, and they're relentless. It feels like every two minutes another song is obnoxiously blasted into my poor eyes and ears.
The film feels like one huge trailer. It's edited and chopped up jarringly, and it's a film that evidently has suffered from re shoots and studio meddling.
I refuse to believe that the same man who directed the damn good 'Fury' is solely responsible for this car crash.
Hopefully, James Gunn can keep the suits at bay and deliver a home run with the next attempt...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Trouble In Paradise (1932) in Movies
Sep 30, 2019
Highly Entertaining
I love that I don’t have to score on a curve when watching the classics. Movies like Trouble In Paradise really do stand the test of time and are quality movies in comparison with even today’s standards. Sure, techniques may have been adjusted for today’s time, but the movie as is is truly a joy. in Trouble In Paradise, two crooks in love plan a heist against a perfume company executive, but the plot truly thickens when things don’t quite go as planned.
Acting: 10
When it comes to performances, each person played their part extremely well. However, I have to give the biggest nod to Herbert Marshall as Gaston. He handles the role with a suave nature that takes over every scene he appears in. He handles the emotional brunt of the movie in a way where you can truly see how torn he is.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Gaston will make you laugh but he will also make you feel. He is a flawed character with many layers. I love that you really don’t know what he’s going to do next. While I thoroughly enjoyed the two female leads as well, Gaston carried the movie in my opinion.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie takes you all over Paris from grand hotels to expansive ballrooms. I enjoyed how director Ernst Lubitsch captures the sleight of hand from the thieves. There were also a few shots hit from different angles to capture point-of-view that I especially appreciated. Overall, the cinematography added to the beauty of the film.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
What makes this film so entertaining and separates it from other classics is that feeling of the unknown. I couldn’t guess what was going to happen if I tried and it made me appreciate the movie that much more. In addition, not only does it have its hilarious moments but some emotional ones as well. Trouble In Paradise takes you on a rollercoaster from start to finish.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story that keeps you guessing. Also, the movie proves that less is more with a plot that’s extremely easy to follow but also intuitive. In the end it’s a story that leaves much for interpretation and lets you decide how you think things unfold.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
From the beginning, this movie grabs your attention and holds it until the last shot. The more I thought about Trouble In Paradise, the more it captivated me. If you are looking for a quality classic, look no further.
Acting: 10
When it comes to performances, each person played their part extremely well. However, I have to give the biggest nod to Herbert Marshall as Gaston. He handles the role with a suave nature that takes over every scene he appears in. He handles the emotional brunt of the movie in a way where you can truly see how torn he is.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Gaston will make you laugh but he will also make you feel. He is a flawed character with many layers. I love that you really don’t know what he’s going to do next. While I thoroughly enjoyed the two female leads as well, Gaston carried the movie in my opinion.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie takes you all over Paris from grand hotels to expansive ballrooms. I enjoyed how director Ernst Lubitsch captures the sleight of hand from the thieves. There were also a few shots hit from different angles to capture point-of-view that I especially appreciated. Overall, the cinematography added to the beauty of the film.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
What makes this film so entertaining and separates it from other classics is that feeling of the unknown. I couldn’t guess what was going to happen if I tried and it made me appreciate the movie that much more. In addition, not only does it have its hilarious moments but some emotional ones as well. Trouble In Paradise takes you on a rollercoaster from start to finish.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story that keeps you guessing. Also, the movie proves that less is more with a plot that’s extremely easy to follow but also intuitive. In the end it’s a story that leaves much for interpretation and lets you decide how you think things unfold.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
From the beginning, this movie grabs your attention and holds it until the last shot. The more I thought about Trouble In Paradise, the more it captivated me. If you are looking for a quality classic, look no further.
Luke (12 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Oct 2, 2017
Stand out performances from Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, and Marty Feldman. (2 more)
Written by Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks
Great parody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Young Frankenstein is a comedy horror film from 1974 directed by Mel Brooks, also known for his work on Blazing Saddles and Spaceballs. The film follows Gene Wilder's character of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein, or should I say Froderick Fronkenstein, as he discovers that he has inherited the estate of his grandfather Victor von Frankenstein. It's interesting to see Wilder go from a calm and collected neuroscience professer to a stark raving madman throughout his performance. The film also benefits from being filmed entirely in black and white, evoking the style of old Universal horror movies from the 1930s. Most of the jokes land, making this film a treat to watch. However, some of them are a bit crude and reference sexual activities, so some people may be a bit turned off by them. The good thing is that there aren't that many of these types of crude jokes so it's not quite so overbearing. In conclusion, this is really one of Mel Brooks' best films and one of Wilder's best performances in his career. Go check it out this Halloween.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Logan Lucky (2017) in Movies
Dec 7, 2017
Sleeper
If you are looking for a movie that checks all the boxes, Logan Lucky is the one. I LOVE finding gems like these. Sleepers. Sure you can see movies like Logan and War For the Planet of the Apes coming from a mile away. You expect them to be great It's films like Logan Lucky, however, that keep the movie calendar refreshing.
Just fired from his job and trying to make enough money to take care of his daughter, Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) devises a plan to rob the Coca-Cola 600 race at Charlotte Motor Speedway. Tatum is awesome in his role, but has a great deal of help from a star-studded the cast the likes of Daniel Craig, Adam Driver, and Katie Holmes. With too many hilarious moments to count and an overly lovable protagonist who you can't help but root for, Logan Lucky is one of the year's best.
In 2007, I saw a movie called Stardust that surprised the heck out of me by how good it was. I mean, the film just came out of nowhere but I couldn't have been happier that I saw it. Logan Lucky gives me the exact same vibe. I give it a very solid 97.
Just fired from his job and trying to make enough money to take care of his daughter, Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) devises a plan to rob the Coca-Cola 600 race at Charlotte Motor Speedway. Tatum is awesome in his role, but has a great deal of help from a star-studded the cast the likes of Daniel Craig, Adam Driver, and Katie Holmes. With too many hilarious moments to count and an overly lovable protagonist who you can't help but root for, Logan Lucky is one of the year's best.
In 2007, I saw a movie called Stardust that surprised the heck out of me by how good it was. I mean, the film just came out of nowhere but I couldn't have been happier that I saw it. Logan Lucky gives me the exact same vibe. I give it a very solid 97.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Dec 10, 2017
Good Disney Tunes (2 more)
Some good laughs
Dante is amazing
Not a bad little flick....
So, here we go... my fisrt non-horror... wait... no. My second non-horror movie review. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I really liked this movie.
I usually gauge Disney movies by how amny times I say WTF during them and amke that famous [parental "UghmmmMyyyyyGawd".... But today, i'm doing a different pattern.
I don't know if getting older has softened my pallet a bit, but this movie actually made me cry. I'm not a bad person, mind you, i have been known to be a bit of a jerk from time to time. But this movie made me feel for the main character, Miguel. Without spoiling it for some of you... His lineage story is worthy of shedding a few tears over.
So, today I give this movie 8 tears out of a possible ten... and I'm not ashamed to admit that i was tearing up...and down my cheeks... at certain moments prior to the credits. So, come on gentlemen... Be a man... shed a tear for a sad story of a boy who just wants to play guitar and sing like his Great great Papa
I usually gauge Disney movies by how amny times I say WTF during them and amke that famous [parental "UghmmmMyyyyyGawd".... But today, i'm doing a different pattern.
I don't know if getting older has softened my pallet a bit, but this movie actually made me cry. I'm not a bad person, mind you, i have been known to be a bit of a jerk from time to time. But this movie made me feel for the main character, Miguel. Without spoiling it for some of you... His lineage story is worthy of shedding a few tears over.
So, today I give this movie 8 tears out of a possible ten... and I'm not ashamed to admit that i was tearing up...and down my cheeks... at certain moments prior to the credits. So, come on gentlemen... Be a man... shed a tear for a sad story of a boy who just wants to play guitar and sing like his Great great Papa
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Apr 14, 2017
Remake of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ convincingly springs to life
Critic Review by Ann Hornaday- Washington Post
Original rating: 3 out of 4
Full review: https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/remake-of-beauty-and-the-beast-convincingly-springs-to-life/2017/03/16/9022737c-05bf-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.dd812aa47337
Excerpt:
This “Beauty and the Beast” isn’t predicated on starry-eyed romance or animal attraction, but the solace of mutual loss and understanding, which makes it all the sweeter. Although the Beast is an entirely digital creation, based in part on Jean Cocteau’s groundbreaking 1946 film, Stevens imbues his hauteur and fanged hostility with pathos and arch humor. Joining Heathcliff and Mr. Rochester as yet another handsome dude in a bad mood, Stevens’s Beast provides the right kind of foil for Watson’s spirited, courageous heroine, who in one of two seriously frightening sequences fights off a snarling pack of wolves. The blink-and-you’ll-miss-it meet-cute moment for two gay characters is part of this “Beauty and the Beast’s” larger sense of expansiveness, wherein exteriors fall away, inner essences come to the fore and true love ensues.
And what in this big, boffo, ball-gowned world could be wrong with that?
Original rating: 3 out of 4
Full review: https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/remake-of-beauty-and-the-beast-convincingly-springs-to-life/2017/03/16/9022737c-05bf-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.dd812aa47337
Excerpt:
This “Beauty and the Beast” isn’t predicated on starry-eyed romance or animal attraction, but the solace of mutual loss and understanding, which makes it all the sweeter. Although the Beast is an entirely digital creation, based in part on Jean Cocteau’s groundbreaking 1946 film, Stevens imbues his hauteur and fanged hostility with pathos and arch humor. Joining Heathcliff and Mr. Rochester as yet another handsome dude in a bad mood, Stevens’s Beast provides the right kind of foil for Watson’s spirited, courageous heroine, who in one of two seriously frightening sequences fights off a snarling pack of wolves. The blink-and-you’ll-miss-it meet-cute moment for two gay characters is part of this “Beauty and the Beast’s” larger sense of expansiveness, wherein exteriors fall away, inner essences come to the fore and true love ensues.
And what in this big, boffo, ball-gowned world could be wrong with that?