Search
Search results
Neil Gaiman recommended Beauty and the Beast (1946) in Movies (curated)
Luke (12 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Oct 2, 2017
Stand out performances from Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, and Marty Feldman. (2 more)
Written by Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks
Great parody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Young Frankenstein is a comedy horror film from 1974 directed by Mel Brooks, also known for his work on Blazing Saddles and Spaceballs. The film follows Gene Wilder's character of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein, or should I say Froderick Fronkenstein, as he discovers that he has inherited the estate of his grandfather Victor von Frankenstein. It's interesting to see Wilder go from a calm and collected neuroscience professer to a stark raving madman throughout his performance. The film also benefits from being filmed entirely in black and white, evoking the style of old Universal horror movies from the 1930s. Most of the jokes land, making this film a treat to watch. However, some of them are a bit crude and reference sexual activities, so some people may be a bit turned off by them. The good thing is that there aren't that many of these types of crude jokes so it's not quite so overbearing. In conclusion, this is really one of Mel Brooks' best films and one of Wilder's best performances in his career. Go check it out this Halloween.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Alice Takes Back Wonderland in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Review copy provided by the publisher via Netgalley
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated An Hour Unspent (Shadows Over England, #3) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Every book in this series has completely blown me away. And through it all, I have been LONGING for more about Barclay. I was so ecstatic when I found out Roseanna White would be featuring him in the final book of the series. Now, don't get me wrong, Evelina is the perfect match for him, and I enjoyed her story too...But BARCLAY...SWOON...
He truly deserves the title of "Swoon Worthy". From the care for his family to his undercover work, to learning about his childhood...Your heart will ache, cheer, and be encouraged. The author has created a whole world of people that carve out their own place in your heart. There is no going back once you dive into this realm.
True to her style, Roseanna seamlessly weaves faith, love, and bit of mystery into this story. Set in the midst of The Great War, this is the perfect story for anyone who loves Downton Abbey or WWI history. Or maybe, you are looking for something new-to-you. You won't go wrong with this series. Start with A Name Unknown and fall in love with Rosie and Peter first!
I received a complimentary copy of An Hour Unspent. I was not required to write a review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
He truly deserves the title of "Swoon Worthy". From the care for his family to his undercover work, to learning about his childhood...Your heart will ache, cheer, and be encouraged. The author has created a whole world of people that carve out their own place in your heart. There is no going back once you dive into this realm.
True to her style, Roseanna seamlessly weaves faith, love, and bit of mystery into this story. Set in the midst of The Great War, this is the perfect story for anyone who loves Downton Abbey or WWI history. Or maybe, you are looking for something new-to-you. You won't go wrong with this series. Start with A Name Unknown and fall in love with Rosie and Peter first!
I received a complimentary copy of An Hour Unspent. I was not required to write a review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Rob Zombie recommended Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies (curated)
Film and stuff (30 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
May 15, 2019
Watch the original
Directed by - Rupert Sanders
Starring - Scarlett Johansson, Pilou Asbæk, Takeshi Kitano, Chin Han and Peter Ferdinando.
Plot - In a future where most of the human race have embraced cybernetic enhancements there exhists an anti-terrorist unit named Sector 9.
The Major and sector 9 are on the hunt for a cyber terrorist who is targeting and killing key memebers of Hanka Robotics, the same organisation who gave Major her artificial body.
Thoughts:
The 1995 Ghost in the Shell is a favourite here and I am torn. I loved the nods to the original Anime and the Stand Alone Complex series that followed. The issue is there is enough of the original story here for it to feel like someone simply changed a few names, added a back story we didn't need, ask for or want and slapped it all together and hoped we would simply enjoy a Live action version.
That being said, I loved it. I left the cinema wanting more and actually wanting and wishing that the world I had just witnessed was the world I lived in now and that hasn't happened since I was a child.
The script needs work and actors may not have been well picked but the world building is magnificent. The visuals are stunning and the performance that have been given were very enjoyable.
I would recommend you see this in cinemas to fully enjoy the world that has been created. Just don't expect the same brilliance of the original.
Starring - Scarlett Johansson, Pilou Asbæk, Takeshi Kitano, Chin Han and Peter Ferdinando.
Plot - In a future where most of the human race have embraced cybernetic enhancements there exhists an anti-terrorist unit named Sector 9.
The Major and sector 9 are on the hunt for a cyber terrorist who is targeting and killing key memebers of Hanka Robotics, the same organisation who gave Major her artificial body.
Thoughts:
The 1995 Ghost in the Shell is a favourite here and I am torn. I loved the nods to the original Anime and the Stand Alone Complex series that followed. The issue is there is enough of the original story here for it to feel like someone simply changed a few names, added a back story we didn't need, ask for or want and slapped it all together and hoped we would simply enjoy a Live action version.
That being said, I loved it. I left the cinema wanting more and actually wanting and wishing that the world I had just witnessed was the world I lived in now and that hasn't happened since I was a child.
The script needs work and actors may not have been well picked but the world building is magnificent. The visuals are stunning and the performance that have been given were very enjoyable.
I would recommend you see this in cinemas to fully enjoy the world that has been created. Just don't expect the same brilliance of the original.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man in Apps
Sep 25, 2019
The Amazing Spider-man, starring Andrew Garfield, came out 10 years after Maguire's ill-fated first attempt, on 3rd July 2012. Co-starring some greats, including Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. You might as well read the last summary for this one too, but add in the fact that he's out to solve his parents' mysterious death.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.