Search
Search results
Alien Slave Masters: Part Two
Book
When a distant planet’s ownership is in dispute, conquering aliens turn defiant human males into...
Dark Science Fiction Erotica MM
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Thank goodness for retro screenings. I hadn't seen The Shining before but it's one of those things that gets parodied and mentioned so often that you think you might have actually seen it. Cineworld put it on so I made the time to go, there's a review coming soon... you know I'm not logical enough to have done it first!
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It may have been a mistake to see the original animated version before seeing this live-action offering. It's incorrect to say it's a remake, they've taken a 64-minute movie and stripped out the principle idea and made a completely new film that's near two hours long.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
