Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m kind of like everyone else out there. I grew up with the Ninja Turtles. I loved the cartoons, the comics and most of all the toys. I remember the pizza shooter. Boy, did I get into some trouble with that. When the movie came out in 1990, I begged and begged by father to take me to it until he finally did. I loved that movie! And while it may not for most, it still hold up for me today.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
The Disappointing Mr. Whicher...or is it the Wandering Ms. Summerscale? No, I've got it! The Bloated Book of Everything Victorian!
I was looking forward to reading, what I thought was, a true crime book with a bit of a look into Mr. Whicher's professional life too. What I got instead was four, possibly more, books in a 304 page book. These four parts consist of the murder of Saville Kent, Mr. Jonathan Whicher himself, an analysis of detective fiction (especially Poe, Dickens, and Collins), the origin of words and phrases in the detection field, many murder/crime stories of the day, other oddly inserted facts and history, etc., etc.
Now, Ms. Summerscale is a fine writer (and researcher for that matter), but it seems as if she wrote for herself instead of us, the readers. While her odd bits and pieces of history are interesting (usually), they are not essential to the plot (or what I thought was the main story), and I found myself glazing quite a bit. Whenever she rhapsodized poetic about Poe, Dickens or any of the other writers of the early detection mystery, it had the overall feel of a research paper and usually didn't have much to do with the murder in the least. The author wandered off way too many times to her own fancy and whenever she went back to the supposed case, it felt as if she had forgotten that she was supposed to be writing about the murder. This left the plotting of the book oddly pieced together and me discombobulated. Where was the editor? Out to lunch? Or did the author disregard what the editor(s) advised her to do? Who knows, but all this extraneous information was just filler and added nothing to the book. I cannot believe this actually won anything. Another quibble was that she also had a bit of a problem with her 'sensationalistic' chapter endings; they just didn't go (or flow) with the whole book.
My biggest problem with the whole book is there isn't much on the murder, which you would think there would be by the cover, synopsis, praise, and marketing. Only a little speculation is spared on a few other suspects; no why might they have done it, how the family may have felt - I wish there had been more focused on the murder and less on everything else. That's why I picked up the book, I wanted to know about the crime and consequences, not on the way of Victorian life or how it influenced writers, there are other books for that (which are listed in the notes and select bibliography in the back I might add). Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the subject content, but the overall construction of the book with all the un-necessary passages left me dissatisfied and grumpy.
I was looking forward to reading, what I thought was, a true crime book with a bit of a look into Mr. Whicher's professional life too. What I got instead was four, possibly more, books in a 304 page book. These four parts consist of the murder of Saville Kent, Mr. Jonathan Whicher himself, an analysis of detective fiction (especially Poe, Dickens, and Collins), the origin of words and phrases in the detection field, many murder/crime stories of the day, other oddly inserted facts and history, etc., etc.
Now, Ms. Summerscale is a fine writer (and researcher for that matter), but it seems as if she wrote for herself instead of us, the readers. While her odd bits and pieces of history are interesting (usually), they are not essential to the plot (or what I thought was the main story), and I found myself glazing quite a bit. Whenever she rhapsodized poetic about Poe, Dickens or any of the other writers of the early detection mystery, it had the overall feel of a research paper and usually didn't have much to do with the murder in the least. The author wandered off way too many times to her own fancy and whenever she went back to the supposed case, it felt as if she had forgotten that she was supposed to be writing about the murder. This left the plotting of the book oddly pieced together and me discombobulated. Where was the editor? Out to lunch? Or did the author disregard what the editor(s) advised her to do? Who knows, but all this extraneous information was just filler and added nothing to the book. I cannot believe this actually won anything. Another quibble was that she also had a bit of a problem with her 'sensationalistic' chapter endings; they just didn't go (or flow) with the whole book.
My biggest problem with the whole book is there isn't much on the murder, which you would think there would be by the cover, synopsis, praise, and marketing. Only a little speculation is spared on a few other suspects; no why might they have done it, how the family may have felt - I wish there had been more focused on the murder and less on everything else. That's why I picked up the book, I wanted to know about the crime and consequences, not on the way of Victorian life or how it influenced writers, there are other books for that (which are listed in the notes and select bibliography in the back I might add). Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the subject content, but the overall construction of the book with all the un-necessary passages left me dissatisfied and grumpy.
Kate Nash recommended track Black Is the Colour of My True Love's Hair by Christy Moore in Live in Dublin by Christy Moore in Music (curated)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Bone Witch (The Bone Witch, #1) in Books
May 16, 2018
The Bone Witch is set in a fantasy world comprised of eight kingdoms, each with their own distinct customs. Some of these kingdoms echo the cultures of the Middle East and others, namely Kion and the asha-ka, the home of the female magic users, are heavily influenced by Asian traditions. In fact, reading The Bone Witch was, in a way, a lot like reading Memoirs of a Geisha, only instead of preparing a girl's virginity for auction, the Houses of the asha-ka sell a much cleaner form of entertainment: performances and magic, to be specific. When they are discovered, the soon-to-be asha are taken away and trained so that they can properly use their abilities. Because of their talents, they are often respected - except for the bone witches, or Dark asha. These are the necromancers of the world that Chupeco has created.
Chupeco has spared nothing in the creation of her world, from elaborate cities and countries, to detailed garb, to the daeva, creatures of supposedly evil origin. She's even created a unique tradition among the denizens of her world, where they quite literally wear their hearts - only it is on their necks, rather than their sleeves. An individual's heartsglass reflects who and what they are, allowing potential asha and Deathseekers to begin their training early in their lives.
It is because of the daeva that bone witches are an unwanted necessity among the eight kingdoms, and it is by accident that we are introduced to Tea, a young girl who, after learning of her older brother's death, becomes so distraught that she accidentally raises him from his grave. From there, we follow Tea's journey to becoming a full-fledged asha, and while the story does have a bit of a lull in its center where nothing happens (I would have put it down if it weren't for the fact that I tend to do my best to finish advance copies), the ending picks up and twists in ways that are surprising. In fact, I found myself completely surprised by not one, but two of the revelations the reader encounters near the end of the book.
The Bone Witch switches between two perspectives in each chapter, with the first portion, the "flashback" for lack of a better word, told from Tea's perspective. At the end of each chapter, in italics, is a few short passages told from the perspective of a bard that has been exiled from his homeland. The italics take place in present day and hint at something much, much larger arriving in the near future while introducing the reader to the young woman that Tea has become.
There does seem to be lack of depth to many of the characters. Tea's brother, Fox, after he is risen from the grave, appears to lack personality. His only drive seems to be protecting his sister, though it is alluded to that in the future, we may see a lot of development to his character (or so I hope). Aside from those asha that belong to House Valerian, only a few of the characters seem to have truly dynamic characteristics.
In regards to that "lull" in the book, I must admit that it is nearly impossible to get through - especially if the reader has a short attention span. Too much time is spent on details that appear to be largely unimportant to the story - such as the fine tuning of Tea's training. Also, while the descriptions of the hua, the garb worn by the asha, are beautifully written, they are a bit too detailed. I could do with a bit less exposition in that regard.
Needless to say, it is going to be a long wait for the next book, and I can't wait for it - those last few chapters really made a difference. Thanks to NetGalley, the publisher, and Rin Chupeco for providing me with an advance copy of the book in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.
Chupeco has spared nothing in the creation of her world, from elaborate cities and countries, to detailed garb, to the daeva, creatures of supposedly evil origin. She's even created a unique tradition among the denizens of her world, where they quite literally wear their hearts - only it is on their necks, rather than their sleeves. An individual's heartsglass reflects who and what they are, allowing potential asha and Deathseekers to begin their training early in their lives.
It is because of the daeva that bone witches are an unwanted necessity among the eight kingdoms, and it is by accident that we are introduced to Tea, a young girl who, after learning of her older brother's death, becomes so distraught that she accidentally raises him from his grave. From there, we follow Tea's journey to becoming a full-fledged asha, and while the story does have a bit of a lull in its center where nothing happens (I would have put it down if it weren't for the fact that I tend to do my best to finish advance copies), the ending picks up and twists in ways that are surprising. In fact, I found myself completely surprised by not one, but two of the revelations the reader encounters near the end of the book.
The Bone Witch switches between two perspectives in each chapter, with the first portion, the "flashback" for lack of a better word, told from Tea's perspective. At the end of each chapter, in italics, is a few short passages told from the perspective of a bard that has been exiled from his homeland. The italics take place in present day and hint at something much, much larger arriving in the near future while introducing the reader to the young woman that Tea has become.
There does seem to be lack of depth to many of the characters. Tea's brother, Fox, after he is risen from the grave, appears to lack personality. His only drive seems to be protecting his sister, though it is alluded to that in the future, we may see a lot of development to his character (or so I hope). Aside from those asha that belong to House Valerian, only a few of the characters seem to have truly dynamic characteristics.
In regards to that "lull" in the book, I must admit that it is nearly impossible to get through - especially if the reader has a short attention span. Too much time is spent on details that appear to be largely unimportant to the story - such as the fine tuning of Tea's training. Also, while the descriptions of the hua, the garb worn by the asha, are beautifully written, they are a bit too detailed. I could do with a bit less exposition in that regard.
Needless to say, it is going to be a long wait for the next book, and I can't wait for it - those last few chapters really made a difference. Thanks to NetGalley, the publisher, and Rin Chupeco for providing me with an advance copy of the book in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
What if Clark Kent grew up to be evil? What if, instead of growing up to be this all powerful protector of Earth and humanity, he decided he wanted to take the world, cruelly toying with and destroying humanity in the process? That's the premise behind Brightburn, a superhero horror movie from producer James Gunn, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. Comic books are littered with plenty of 'what if' story-lines and alternate takes on popular superheroes, but up until now probably the most famous onscreen version of an evil Superman we've seen was in Superman III. And even then we only really got a drunk, unshaven, but still family friendly Superman, who felt a bit mischievous and blew out the Olympic torch for a bit of a laugh. Brightburn goes a lot darker, leaning heavily into horror with some wonderful, wince-inducing gory moments. If you're looking for Dark Phoenix levels of dark - moody, crying in the corner, that kind of thing - then you're going to be disappointed.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Layers of Fear in Video Games
Oct 26, 2019
Psychological Paintings
Contains spoilers, click to show
Layers of Fear- is scary, horrorfying, spooky, creepy, terrorfying, psychologically thrilling and more.
In Layers of Fear, the player controls a psychologically disturbed painter who is trying to complete his magnum opus, as he navigates through a Victorian mansion, with disturbing secrets about the painter being discovered. The gameplay, presented in first person perspective, is heavily story driven and often revolves mostly around puzzle-solving and exploration, as the game intensifies after each level while jump scares occur often.
The game is divided into six chapters with various items for the player to find in order to complete his work. The game is heavily dimmed, and there are objects that uncover certain aspects of the painter's history. While completing the painting, there is a letter that is slowly pieced together, which shows the origin of his masterpiece, and objects which explain the secret of the painter through dialogue flashbacks.
Lets talk about the plot and the three different endings.
Set in the 1920s United States, the unnamed protagonist returns home from a court hearing. After briefly exploring his empty house, he goes to his workshop to start working on his "magnum opus". After he adds the first layer, he starts having hallucinations about his past encounters.
There are three different endings featured in the game, each depending on the player's actions during the course of the game.
Ending 1 - The endless loop ending shows that the artist was working on a portrait of his wife as the masterpiece. He seemingly succeeds in creating the painting, and steps back to admire it only to see the figure of his wife devolve into a mutilated figure that proceeds to taunt him. Horrified, he grabs the painting and hurls it into a room full of identical paintings, all of which begin to laugh. It is revealed that the painter spent years shut in his house working on the same picture multiple times trying to perfect it in a cycle of obsessive mental deterioration. If the player enters the room where the artist threw the painting into, it is revealed that all the portraits are well made and resemble the artist's wife, but he can only see them as a disfigured mess. Returning to the studio, he unveils a blank canvas and begins working on the next painting, further continuing his self-destructive cycle as the screen fades to black.
Ending 2- The family ending is much the same, but this time he puts his child in the painting too. He then realizes the horrible mistakes he has made, and that he can never bring them back, no matter how many times he tries. He goes to the room upstairs and burns all his previous paintings along with his finished work before laying down and dying in the fire.
Ending 3- The selfish ending ends with a portrait of himself as his final attempt. Being finally satisfied, he decides to hang it in the room upstairs. The next shot goes to his painting on a display at a museum among other famous Victorian artists.
Their is also dlc for this game called Inheritance, which also has a good ending, bad ending and the true ending. I havent played the DLC so i wont spoil it because i havent played it.
Anways Layers of Fear is a grear game and I can't not wait until I play the DLC and Layers of Fear 2.
In Layers of Fear, the player controls a psychologically disturbed painter who is trying to complete his magnum opus, as he navigates through a Victorian mansion, with disturbing secrets about the painter being discovered. The gameplay, presented in first person perspective, is heavily story driven and often revolves mostly around puzzle-solving and exploration, as the game intensifies after each level while jump scares occur often.
The game is divided into six chapters with various items for the player to find in order to complete his work. The game is heavily dimmed, and there are objects that uncover certain aspects of the painter's history. While completing the painting, there is a letter that is slowly pieced together, which shows the origin of his masterpiece, and objects which explain the secret of the painter through dialogue flashbacks.
Lets talk about the plot and the three different endings.
Set in the 1920s United States, the unnamed protagonist returns home from a court hearing. After briefly exploring his empty house, he goes to his workshop to start working on his "magnum opus". After he adds the first layer, he starts having hallucinations about his past encounters.
There are three different endings featured in the game, each depending on the player's actions during the course of the game.
Ending 1 - The endless loop ending shows that the artist was working on a portrait of his wife as the masterpiece. He seemingly succeeds in creating the painting, and steps back to admire it only to see the figure of his wife devolve into a mutilated figure that proceeds to taunt him. Horrified, he grabs the painting and hurls it into a room full of identical paintings, all of which begin to laugh. It is revealed that the painter spent years shut in his house working on the same picture multiple times trying to perfect it in a cycle of obsessive mental deterioration. If the player enters the room where the artist threw the painting into, it is revealed that all the portraits are well made and resemble the artist's wife, but he can only see them as a disfigured mess. Returning to the studio, he unveils a blank canvas and begins working on the next painting, further continuing his self-destructive cycle as the screen fades to black.
Ending 2- The family ending is much the same, but this time he puts his child in the painting too. He then realizes the horrible mistakes he has made, and that he can never bring them back, no matter how many times he tries. He goes to the room upstairs and burns all his previous paintings along with his finished work before laying down and dying in the fire.
Ending 3- The selfish ending ends with a portrait of himself as his final attempt. Being finally satisfied, he decides to hang it in the room upstairs. The next shot goes to his painting on a display at a museum among other famous Victorian artists.
Their is also dlc for this game called Inheritance, which also has a good ending, bad ending and the true ending. I havent played the DLC so i wont spoil it because i havent played it.
Anways Layers of Fear is a grear game and I can't not wait until I play the DLC and Layers of Fear 2.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Near Perfect Film/Comic Book Movie With A Piece Missing
Contains spoilers, click to show
This film did a great job in making the Joker or rather Arthur a sympathetic character. Joaquin Phoenix did a phenomenal job in this movie. His laugh made me really feel for this character, it sounded sad but also painful, like it physically hurt him. I really felt for Arthur and it actually made me feel bad for him equally when he was getting beat up and assaulted but also just berated and treated bad by others. People were talking about the violence in the movie and how it was graphic and disturbing but what bothered me more were the parts where Arthur was having violence done on him, it made me sad for him. I thought a lot of the movie was well done. The double twist in him finding his mother's letter to Thomas Wayne saying he (Arthur) is his son only to find out that he was adopted was a great reveal. Still makes me wonder what the truth really is, because later he does find a photograph with Thomas Wayne's initials on the back. Either he really is his son and Wayne had it covered up, which he totally has the means to do, or maybe she was delusional about it. I also thought it was cool how they showed Arthur also had delusions of grandeur in the begging when he is watching the Murray show and he imagines himself as a guest there. Like I said this movie was really well done in a lot of ways but there were somethings that bothered me. One right off the back is that Bruce Wayne is just a kid in this movie and if Arthur is supposed to be the Joker he would be way older than he should be when Wayne becomes Batman. To mere there wasn't a lot that Arthur really did as Joker. Nothing grandiose or epic like what I've become accustomed to with the Joker in other incarnations. There was no plans or power moves like in The Dark Knight or parade and taking over the city like in 1989's Batman. They really could have called the movie something else since he really only becomes the Joker at the end of the movie for not really that long even. I know it's supposed to be an origin story of how he becomes the Joker but it wasn't even going off of any of the comics and just loosely based on the version of Joker from The Killing Joke and then given the "Hollywood" treatment. I think I just expected more Joker from a movie called Joker. I thought the ending was perfect if it would have ended with him on top of the car when they helped him escape. I honestly don't know why they should that little part with him in Arkham, I don't think it added anything and kind of took away from it. The only thing I can think of is they didn't want to end it that dark. I have to say that if your judging this film from not being a big fan of Joker, the comics or the films and only on as a stand alone film it's probably like a 9/10. But for me since at it's core it is a comic book movie I give it an 8/10.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)