Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Pet peeve
#petsematary is a dire #remake of an already bad #film. Its drab, lifeless & should never of been #reanimated. I had high hopes for this film because it feels like its been a while since the last mainstream horror movie so as I felt genuinely excited but after the first 15 minutes this feeling had quickly been replaced with sheer #fear there was still well over an hour left to go till i could leave. Before we hit the negatives ill give you my positives that saved the movie from being a total walk out. First - #johnlithgow is great as always but mostly wasted largely because of the terrible script he's been given to work with. Second - the running theme of #death is great & the film portrays how all living things fear it so much rather well (it also handles #grieving & guilt #trauma surrounding #death well too but its ultimately far to brief). Now the bad - the movie feels nasty & cheap to look at visually, cgi is bad, make up design is lazy, the camerawork feels awkward & strangely zoomed in just a bit to close to everything, theres weird #90s era motion blur on everything fast moving, acting is laughable/cheesy & scenes go on far to long as does build up to key scenes that have an anticlimactic pay off. If you've seen the original or the trailer for that matter the film becomes highly predictable killing all suspense & what little atmosphere the film conjures up is ruined by naff & bland set design. I honestly cant recomend anyone wasting their time on this highly forgettable film unless your a big fan of really #adorable #cats then this one in this is a clear 10/10 on the #cute scale. An uninspired lazy cash grab & there are a million horror films out there that tell almost the same story way better. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #stephenking #scary #cat #animal #pet #classic #retro #cultclassic #80s #filmbuff #filmcritic #zombie
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Cold as ice
#coldpursuit tries to hit like an avalanche but ends up being disappointing & forgettable like #snowflakes falling on to wet ground. Cold Pursuit is a remake of the #Norwegian film #inorderofdisappearance which received extremely good reviews across the board begging the question why did it need to be remade? & the straight answer to that is no it didn't. #liamnesson plays #NelsCoxman he's quite an interesting character being the town s #hero forced to seek revenge for the death of his son, problem is Nesson plays him just has he does any character now days making him not only #boring but unlikable & its hard to sympathise with him at all. Overall the film is a huge rip off of the far superior #WindRiver & also #Fargo trying its very hardest to be a #coenbrothers movie but failing at everything especially the #humour. Tone wise its a mess with #Nesson taking everything far to seriously while the film tries its hardest to be quirky & #funny. Humour that would work well in a Norwegian movie simply fails here & at times stops the movie dead or ruins the flow/serious tension its created. #tombateman is probably the best character here but even he feels like his character is an audition for the next #Joker in a #DC #batman movie. Essentially one big statement on #racism, the fight over territory & how the benefits of having & decent upbringing shapes our future Cold Pursuit has a decent message in there somewhere its just poorly handled. I did however like the score & there are sprinklings of nice production & visuals too which helped to hold my attention. All in all Cold Pursuit is simply just 'FINE' nothing more nothing less but when there are better films out there aka Wind River, Fargo or even the original fine just doesn't really cut it. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic #racist #winter #cold #revenge #weekend #weekendvibes #nordicnoir
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 7 Days In Entebbe (2018) in Movies
Mar 22, 2018
Doesn't really work
Most of us (including me), when we heard about the new film 7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE, thought to themselves "didn't they just make this film a few years ago...?" The answer is yes. A similar film to this - RAID ON ENTEBBE - was a TV movie made a few years ago - 42 years ago, to be precise. It starred Peter Finch, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden and good ol' Charles Bronson. Made a mere few months after the true events, this slapped together movie was an old-fashioned "shoot 'em up."
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018 (Updated Feb 24, 2018)
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a solid film-going experience, albeit a little cheesy at times. While its overdone ending keeps it just short of a being an action/adventure classic, I have to say I was impressed with how well they were able to take the source material of the original and truly make it something entirely new. In this newer version of the remake, four kids in detention get trapped inside a video game and have to play their way out. They are eached armed with a set of "lives" and, just like in a game, losing lives brings you closer to losing everything. They must rely on the skills of their avatars to traverse the dangerous jungle terrain.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
This "remake" of the cult classic 80s slasher is actually one of those modern horror soft reboots, that could be considered a sequel, in this case, following on directly from the original, but ignoring any of the original follow ups.
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
JT (287 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Colin Farrell as a vampire? He would hardly be my choice as the leading man in this one, yet beneath it all you get the impression that he loved every minute.
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
JT (287 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've always said that the vast majority of horror remakes just don’t better the original, and this one can also join that list. Stephen King adaptations are a bit hit and miss and this new incarnation is no different.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
JT (287 KP) rated Anna (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Tell me if you’ve heard this one before? A young woman is pulled from a life of drugs and abuse and given a fresh start as a deadly assassin. Once on the inside, she uses her skill set and good looks to complete various assignments while falling for her handler. She then decides that her new life is not for her after all and wants out.
Writer/director Luc Besson has pretty much rehashed the script for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita). That film had a remake too, Point of No Return, which starred Bridget Fonda and Gabriel Byrne. This latest offering doesn’t do anything new whatsoever. There are several well choreographed and extremely violent fight scenes as well as a car chase which seems to be a staple part of any Luc Besson film.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. And there are plot holes all over the place.
The sexual exploitation is not as fierce as Red Sparrow. Anna uses an array of colourful wigs and lingerie to entrap her victims before ultimately putting a bullet in them. This only seeks to justify her sex appeal. The supporting cast is OK but nothing special. Helen Mirren is probably the stand out of the bunch, although her character has a striking resemblance to Edna from The Incredibles – or maybe that’s just me?
When Cillian Murphy‘s CIA agent gets involved it becomes hard to know who is double crossing who, and the extra plot strand threatens to confuse things. What results is a kind of Cold War love triangle which gravitates towards an interesting finale only ruined by predictability.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. But it is fun and film fans should appreciate Besson’s high energy and European flair. I prefer him as a writer than director. Anna doesn’t shy away from bringing graphic violence in a Wick-esque style which is often lost with Hollywood blockbusters, so that gets a big tick. But it’s hard not to look past a regurgitated storyline.
Writer/director Luc Besson has pretty much rehashed the script for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita). That film had a remake too, Point of No Return, which starred Bridget Fonda and Gabriel Byrne. This latest offering doesn’t do anything new whatsoever. There are several well choreographed and extremely violent fight scenes as well as a car chase which seems to be a staple part of any Luc Besson film.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. And there are plot holes all over the place.
The sexual exploitation is not as fierce as Red Sparrow. Anna uses an array of colourful wigs and lingerie to entrap her victims before ultimately putting a bullet in them. This only seeks to justify her sex appeal. The supporting cast is OK but nothing special. Helen Mirren is probably the stand out of the bunch, although her character has a striking resemblance to Edna from The Incredibles – or maybe that’s just me?
When Cillian Murphy‘s CIA agent gets involved it becomes hard to know who is double crossing who, and the extra plot strand threatens to confuse things. What results is a kind of Cold War love triangle which gravitates towards an interesting finale only ruined by predictability.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. But it is fun and film fans should appreciate Besson’s high energy and European flair. I prefer him as a writer than director. Anna doesn’t shy away from bringing graphic violence in a Wick-esque style which is often lost with Hollywood blockbusters, so that gets a big tick. But it’s hard not to look past a regurgitated storyline.
JT (287 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As what we would describe as the classic monster horror, this remake of the 1941 black and white picture in some way does itself and the original some justice.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.