Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Over a year on from this novelty being the first fully interactive film released by Netflix there is still no evidence of a similarly user controlled show out there. The streaming service had promised, after scooping a primetime Emmy for outstanding TV movie, that it was commissioning many more like it. But as of January 2020 they are nowhere to be seen.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Mar 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been looking forward to this since before it was cool.
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
18 Dating app: Chat & Meet
Dating, Entertainment and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Find new friends, your other half or a new love with 18 Dating app. Everyone has a beautiful love...
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
See no evil
The Invisible Man is not a movie about an Invisible Man and certainly not the horror movie its being promoted as, instead its a tight little scifi esq thriller about domestic violence and the lingering effects domestic abuse can bring. Directed by the same director of the absolutley fantastic film Upgrade The invisible man could almost be a companion piece in a sense or even take place in the same world as Upgrade. From the titles its clear tension and impending dread is absolutely nailed here and as we look in on our lead character we can see just how extreme and unsafe her situation/relationship has become. Shes a victim trapped by an abusive and obsessive partner and before her life becomes any more at risk she escapes, but what she then leaves herself open to is a life of paraninoia, mental scaring, trauma, torture and living life in constant fear that her partner will come for her again. Shes never free from him and the way the film uses the invisible man as a metaphor is extremely clever as it shows her trying to live a normal life while clearly completely damaged by the hold one man had on her and by the echoes of the abuse she recived from him (in a sense its like hes still there constantly breathing over her shoulder). Everything is done well and the film really benefits from its slow pace as it helps us as a viewer really get invested into this character and shows just how damaged she has become from past events. Its score is phenomenal too helping ramp up the fear and tension with its intense futuristic droning and screeching. When violence hits its impactful, brutal and shocking as the long build up for it makes it seem like it comes out of nowhere preserving shock value perfectly. Fight scenes are filmed just like the ones from Upgrade full of energy/style and are just as unique/cool while making subtle nods to that film too. Acting is really good especially Elisabeth Moss watching her evolve as a character and in sense use the traits of the person she hates to become stronger is riviting and Eldis Hodge gives a great support role too. Its to bad at times the acting its hurt unnecessarily however by very exposition heavy dialog. If youve seen the trailer for this movie the invisible man reveal will have been spoilt for you as will too a crucial story point however overall as a film what Leigh Whannell has achieved here with this film is certainly very very brave and vastly diffrent from the way these films usually play out. Hes given a very clever and unique take on a character that has already been done to death in films and while it was predictable to a certain extent I applaud him for not going for the lazy done to death almost supernatural approach to this character. The Invisible man is a breath of fresh air amongst crap like fantasy island/the boy 2 and while by no means perfect its brave and realistic portrayals of the after effects of domestic abuse are shocking, well represented and tuff to watch at times. Invisible man is a pleasant surprise but will no doubt be far to slow and intelligent for those just looking for mere jump scares. That being said if this director keeps up this great track record I wouldnt be surprised if bigger film companies start seeking him out very soon.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Absolutely Bonkers
2013’s Pacific Rim was one of the most underrated films of the year. Lumbered in the same category as the Transformers series for its seemingly simple premise about robots fighting giant monsters, it had a lukewarm performance at the box office.
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.