Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Johnny Marr recommended track Jeepster by T Rex in Electric Boogie 1971 by T Rex in Music (curated)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Dana (24 KP) rated The Tempest in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this play for my Shakespeare class in college and it was the first time I had ever read it.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ushering in what they hope will be a bold new era in 3D movie making, Dreamworks has set a very high standard with “Monsters Vs Aliens”. By combining science fiction and monster films, pop culture references, a strong cast, and cutting edge 3D technology, the film is likely to score big with audiences of all ages.
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated That's My Boy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Adam Sandler movies have often been a mixed bag. For every “The Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” there are several forgettable offerings like “Little Nicky”, “I Now Prounounce You Chuck and Larry”, and “8 Crazy Nights”. To be fair there’ve also been several guilty pleasures such as “Happy Gilmore” and “The Waterboy” along the way. Sadly, his recent offerings, culminating in the disastrous “Jack and Jill”, have given me very low expectations for his new film “That’s My Boy” which pairs Sandler with former Saturday Night Live star Andy Samberg.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Dark Sacred Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Well-plotted mystery
Renee Ballard is working her usual late night shift when she finds a man going through files at the station. It turns out this stranger is Harry Bosch, a retired detective, who is working on a cold case that has turned personal. Ballard sends him on his way, but begins looking into the files Bosch was flipping through. Once she does, she becomes interested in the case too: fifteen-year-old Daisy, a runaway who was horrifically murdered, her body left on the streets. Ballard begins investigating the case as well, forming an alliance with Bosch and attempting to find out what happened to Daisy nearly a decade ago.
I was a little leery when I learned that Connelly was going to combine Renee's story with my beloved Harry Bosch's (let's just say I love Bosch too much to share him), but this book was really excellent, and I found myself enjoying the two of them together. The narrative switches between Ballard and Bosch, so we still get to hear from each character separately: it's just their stories and lives that start to overlap. This overlap happened pretty naturally, and honestly, their burgeoning partnership/friendship was fun to see. There's a moment in the book when someone asks the pair how they want some files, and Ballard responds "digital" and Bosch, "print," and we get a sense of the fact that--no matter how clever and similar they are--Bosch is truly our old school guy and Ballard is the new blood. So combining forces might not be so bad after all.
I love Harry Bosch. I've loved him for about seven years now, since I discovered this series, and I will always adore him, and I don't like that he's aging, and yeah. I'm attached. Reading his sections was like being back with an old friend. Connelly has Bosch's character and voice so perfected by now. I don't want to reveal too much, but this book ties back to the previous a bit (though it will work on its own), so we see Bosch struggling with some of the choices he made in the last book and figuring out exactly where he stands in his career. I won't lie: it's hard to see him age and even to be fallible.
I really tried to read this one slowly and savor it, as Connelly books (especially with Bosch) just don't come along every day. I love how Connelly seems to know so much (e.g., police procedures, gang wars and rituals, even about surfing), but it never feels like he's over explaining anything. Even better, you always get such a good story. I enjoy how he ties so many of his disparate plot pieces together, or comes back to something you think is totally unrelated. And there's always some sort of recent pop culture worked in (a bit of the #MeToo movement pops up here).
There's a lot going on this book--after all, we get cases from both Bosch and Ballard, plus their shared pursuit of justice for Daisy, but it all works in Connelly's deft hands. He is the master of interlocking stories. Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I was fascinated to see Bosch and Ballard interact, and I was so glad to have another episode featuring my beloved Bosch. If you're a Bosch fan, I think you'll like this one. And if you just enjoy a good, well-plotted mystery, I highly recommend this one as well.
I was a little leery when I learned that Connelly was going to combine Renee's story with my beloved Harry Bosch's (let's just say I love Bosch too much to share him), but this book was really excellent, and I found myself enjoying the two of them together. The narrative switches between Ballard and Bosch, so we still get to hear from each character separately: it's just their stories and lives that start to overlap. This overlap happened pretty naturally, and honestly, their burgeoning partnership/friendship was fun to see. There's a moment in the book when someone asks the pair how they want some files, and Ballard responds "digital" and Bosch, "print," and we get a sense of the fact that--no matter how clever and similar they are--Bosch is truly our old school guy and Ballard is the new blood. So combining forces might not be so bad after all.
I love Harry Bosch. I've loved him for about seven years now, since I discovered this series, and I will always adore him, and I don't like that he's aging, and yeah. I'm attached. Reading his sections was like being back with an old friend. Connelly has Bosch's character and voice so perfected by now. I don't want to reveal too much, but this book ties back to the previous a bit (though it will work on its own), so we see Bosch struggling with some of the choices he made in the last book and figuring out exactly where he stands in his career. I won't lie: it's hard to see him age and even to be fallible.
I really tried to read this one slowly and savor it, as Connelly books (especially with Bosch) just don't come along every day. I love how Connelly seems to know so much (e.g., police procedures, gang wars and rituals, even about surfing), but it never feels like he's over explaining anything. Even better, you always get such a good story. I enjoy how he ties so many of his disparate plot pieces together, or comes back to something you think is totally unrelated. And there's always some sort of recent pop culture worked in (a bit of the #MeToo movement pops up here).
There's a lot going on this book--after all, we get cases from both Bosch and Ballard, plus their shared pursuit of justice for Daisy, but it all works in Connelly's deft hands. He is the master of interlocking stories. Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I was fascinated to see Bosch and Ballard interact, and I was so glad to have another episode featuring my beloved Bosch. If you're a Bosch fan, I think you'll like this one. And if you just enjoy a good, well-plotted mystery, I highly recommend this one as well.