Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Predictably Gruesome, But Entertaining
Child's Play is a 2019 slasher/horror movie directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. It was produced by Orion Pictures, KatzSmith Productions, and BRON Creative and distributed by United Artists Releasing. The film stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, Brian Tyree Henry, and Mark Hamill.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
An interesting experiment, to be sure - but one which only ends up being adequate. A fragmented, weird, messy experience (which certainly isn't always bad) but compared to today's shit throwaway remakes that we see every other week now this seems much more nuanced than we gave it credit for, in retrospect. Still feels like two totally different movies - first you have the sort of scuffed backstory stuff which, yes, I agree does devalue the mystery of this character a bit but it's peppered graciously with Zombie's greasy, raunchy flavor and is the most genuinely brutal part of the film in comparison to the CliffNotes remake portion which seems a lot more confusingly sterile, frustratingly cutting away from most of the stabs and pulling out knives with no blood on them - stuff like that. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the likes of đđŠđŚ đđŚđˇđŞđ'đ´ đđŚđŤđŚđ¤đľđ´ but like many I wish this stuck with being a Rob Zombie movie rather than just doing an express retread of the original where all the characters are grating jerkwads who hate each other. Often not a bad emulation and it's sort of interesting seeing these once formal characters now going around saying harmful expletives all the time - it's still suitably grimy after all but the new additions seem senseless while the returning characters/aspects are given nothing to do. The saving grace of this back portion is Tyler Mane's hulking behemoth Myers - just eating bullets, stabs, and blunt trauma one after the other as if someone's flicking spitballs at him while delivering effortless violence in his wake. And come on that revamped mask is so damn cool. In these moments it's clear that nobody roots for the bad guy(s) and revels in the abject misfortune of the innocent quite like Zombie - and that his movies are at their best when they focus acutely on the sort of writhes, convulsions, and pleads the human body does when it's faced with inhuman destruction by the hands of those who live by it. I still have no idea why they gave him this franchise though when his trailer park spectacle aesthetic is practically *gift-wrapped* for the đđŚđšđ˘đ´ đđŠđ˘đŞđŻđ´đ˘đ¸ series.
The School : White Day
Games
App
â Game Introduction â The legendary classic horror game returns with full 3D graphics. The...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Cinderella is Dead in Books
Jan 17, 2022
11 of 230
Book
Cinderella is Dead
By Kalynn Bayron
It's 200 years since Cinderella found her prince, but the fairytale is over.
Sophia knows the story though, off by heart. Because every girl has to recite it daily, from when she's tiny until the night she's sent to the royal ball for choosing. And every girl knows that she has only one chance. For the lives of those not chosen by a man at the ball ⌠are forfeit.
But Sophia doesn't want to be chosen â she's in love with her best friend, Erin, and hates the idea of being traded like cattle. And when Sophia's night at the ball goes horribly wrong, she must run for her life. Alone and terrified, she finds herself hiding in Cinderella's tomb. And there she meets someone who will show her that she has the power to remake her world âŚ
An electrifying twist on the classic fairytale that will inspire girls to break out of limiting stereotypes and follow their dreams!
This book has torn me in two! One half of me didnât like it I felt the all men are evil message for most of the book was unnecessary and a bit forceful I mean even coming down on her dad and the poor man offering them help! It wasnât until we got to Livs dad a good word was really said. Ok so if I went on this alone my rating would be 1 maybe 2 stars at a push! Then the other half of me was so intrigued and needed to keep reading hence the reason it was read in 24 hours. So this second half wanted to see this story play out and was kinda enjoying the whole new version of a childhood classic I think yes it was a bit predictable towards the end but it still needs its happy ending doesnât it?. I settled on a 3 star review for the whole reason I didnât keep reading and it did get better towards the end. Im also intrigued by the book of tales that Constance produced. Hopefully someone else will find it a better read.
Book
Cinderella is Dead
By Kalynn Bayron
It's 200 years since Cinderella found her prince, but the fairytale is over.
Sophia knows the story though, off by heart. Because every girl has to recite it daily, from when she's tiny until the night she's sent to the royal ball for choosing. And every girl knows that she has only one chance. For the lives of those not chosen by a man at the ball ⌠are forfeit.
But Sophia doesn't want to be chosen â she's in love with her best friend, Erin, and hates the idea of being traded like cattle. And when Sophia's night at the ball goes horribly wrong, she must run for her life. Alone and terrified, she finds herself hiding in Cinderella's tomb. And there she meets someone who will show her that she has the power to remake her world âŚ
An electrifying twist on the classic fairytale that will inspire girls to break out of limiting stereotypes and follow their dreams!
This book has torn me in two! One half of me didnât like it I felt the all men are evil message for most of the book was unnecessary and a bit forceful I mean even coming down on her dad and the poor man offering them help! It wasnât until we got to Livs dad a good word was really said. Ok so if I went on this alone my rating would be 1 maybe 2 stars at a push! Then the other half of me was so intrigued and needed to keep reading hence the reason it was read in 24 hours. So this second half wanted to see this story play out and was kinda enjoying the whole new version of a childhood classic I think yes it was a bit predictable towards the end but it still needs its happy ending doesnât it?. I settled on a 3 star review for the whole reason I didnât keep reading and it did get better towards the end. Im also intrigued by the book of tales that Constance produced. Hopefully someone else will find it a better read.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesnât really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean itâs only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isnât impressed as ânobody plays board games these daysâ, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC â I mean support cast â is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests â yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek â The Rock of course. You want a âLara Croftâ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl â enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything â Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female â that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isnât even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Donât let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isnât impressed as ânobody plays board games these daysâ, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC â I mean support cast â is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests â yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek â The Rock of course. You want a âLara Croftâ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl â enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything â Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female â that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isnât even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Donât let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Electric Dragon 80.000 V (2000) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Dragon Eye Morrison (Tadanobu Asano, Hogun in the Thor films)) didnât have a normal childhood. As a young boy, he climbed an electrical tower despite his friends warning him heâd be electrocuted. After the inevitable occurred, Dragon Eye seems to go through electroshock therapy whenever he gets into trouble. These shocking developments usually happen in fights and become more frequent when he gets older. As a result, heâs now charged with 80,000 volts of electricity at all times. He has developed his own version of the therapy that involves bolting himself to a table. The only way he can deal with being charged with this much electricity is by playing his electric guitar. Aside from his unusual self-treatment, Dragon Eye is a lizard expert who has an impressive reptile collection. When one of his lizards goes missing and Thunderbolt Buddha (Mastoshi Nagase, Paterson, The Hidden Blade) steps into the picture, thatâs when things get even more bizarre.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is a beyond weird cinematic experience. It clocks in at a little under 55-minutes, so calling it a full-length movie may be a bit of an overstatement. Written and directed by GakuryĹŤ Ishii (credited as Sogo Ishi, he has also directed Labyrinth of Dreams and Angel Dust), the Japanese film is visually similar to Tetsuo, the Iron Man but is more like an extended music video that collided with the visuals of a live-action anime or manga. Ishii used the leftover funds from Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle to make Electric Dragon 80,000 V while recruiting Asano and Nagase who were the two main leads in Gojoe.
Having nothing else in common with Gojoe, Electric Dragon 80,000 V is absolutely its own beast. The filmâs biggest strength is its cinematography. With Norimichi Kasamatsu (Korean filmmaker Lee Song-ilâs 2013 remake of Unforgiven) as the filmâs cinematographer, being entirely in black and white allows the visuals of the film to bleed off the screen. Some of the most unique shots are when Dragon Eye is playing guitar as the drastic lighting and creative perspective are just what youâd expect from someone taking all of their frustrations out on a guitar; incredibly angry and in your face. Thereâs a scene in the second half of the film where Thunderbolt Buddha has gotten Dragon Eyeâs full attention and Dragon Eye is moving through rooms without moving himself. He appears to be floating from room to room and it allows you to realize how heâs feeling at that particular point in the film as if itâs all a bad dream.
The music may be what makes or breaks the film for the viewer as it tends to walk a thin line between catchy rock music to nothing but loud, distorted noise with screaming. The film is noisy in every sense of the word. Whenever Dragon Eye starts playing his guitar, it often just sounds like noise. It fits the tone of the film perfectly since it complements the concept of channeling 80,000 volts of electricity through a guitar. That would probably sound more like amplified noise than polished music. If youâre not a fan of loud, heavy music then it may affect your judgment of the film.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is an unusual gray scale experiment, but itâs certainly innovative and unlike anything else youâve ever seen. Itâs not a remake and itâs not an adaptation. Itâs an original film that stands on its own, but its radical plunge into such severe weirdness could be a turnoff for some viewers as its manga inspired influences flow excessively through every frame surrounding every sequence with boisterous and heavy guitar riffs; think like a shorter and black and white version of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that somehow fused with the FLCL anime. This was discovered while digging through Tadanobu Asanoâs filmography and if youâre fan of his stuff, then Electric Dragon 80,000 V comes highly recommended.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V isnât available to stream anywhere, was never released on Blu-ray (this would be amazing in high definition), and the DVD is out of print. A high quality version of the DVD cover had to be pulled from eBay of all places since Google canât seem to find one otherwise that isnât tiny in size. The DVD is available on Amazon from third party sellers for $39.99 plus $3.99 shipping in new condition and $29.98 with free shipping in used condition. A pre-owned DVD is running $69.99 to $79.99 on eBay with free shipping. It does look like someone uploaded a 90-minute version of the film on YouTube with English subs and that looks to be the best way to see the film at the moment.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is a beyond weird cinematic experience. It clocks in at a little under 55-minutes, so calling it a full-length movie may be a bit of an overstatement. Written and directed by GakuryĹŤ Ishii (credited as Sogo Ishi, he has also directed Labyrinth of Dreams and Angel Dust), the Japanese film is visually similar to Tetsuo, the Iron Man but is more like an extended music video that collided with the visuals of a live-action anime or manga. Ishii used the leftover funds from Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle to make Electric Dragon 80,000 V while recruiting Asano and Nagase who were the two main leads in Gojoe.
Having nothing else in common with Gojoe, Electric Dragon 80,000 V is absolutely its own beast. The filmâs biggest strength is its cinematography. With Norimichi Kasamatsu (Korean filmmaker Lee Song-ilâs 2013 remake of Unforgiven) as the filmâs cinematographer, being entirely in black and white allows the visuals of the film to bleed off the screen. Some of the most unique shots are when Dragon Eye is playing guitar as the drastic lighting and creative perspective are just what youâd expect from someone taking all of their frustrations out on a guitar; incredibly angry and in your face. Thereâs a scene in the second half of the film where Thunderbolt Buddha has gotten Dragon Eyeâs full attention and Dragon Eye is moving through rooms without moving himself. He appears to be floating from room to room and it allows you to realize how heâs feeling at that particular point in the film as if itâs all a bad dream.
The music may be what makes or breaks the film for the viewer as it tends to walk a thin line between catchy rock music to nothing but loud, distorted noise with screaming. The film is noisy in every sense of the word. Whenever Dragon Eye starts playing his guitar, it often just sounds like noise. It fits the tone of the film perfectly since it complements the concept of channeling 80,000 volts of electricity through a guitar. That would probably sound more like amplified noise than polished music. If youâre not a fan of loud, heavy music then it may affect your judgment of the film.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is an unusual gray scale experiment, but itâs certainly innovative and unlike anything else youâve ever seen. Itâs not a remake and itâs not an adaptation. Itâs an original film that stands on its own, but its radical plunge into such severe weirdness could be a turnoff for some viewers as its manga inspired influences flow excessively through every frame surrounding every sequence with boisterous and heavy guitar riffs; think like a shorter and black and white version of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that somehow fused with the FLCL anime. This was discovered while digging through Tadanobu Asanoâs filmography and if youâre fan of his stuff, then Electric Dragon 80,000 V comes highly recommended.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V isnât available to stream anywhere, was never released on Blu-ray (this would be amazing in high definition), and the DVD is out of print. A high quality version of the DVD cover had to be pulled from eBay of all places since Google canât seem to find one otherwise that isnât tiny in size. The DVD is available on Amazon from third party sellers for $39.99 plus $3.99 shipping in new condition and $29.98 with free shipping in used condition. A pre-owned DVD is running $69.99 to $79.99 on eBay with free shipping. It does look like someone uploaded a 90-minute version of the film on YouTube with English subs and that looks to be the best way to see the film at the moment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original â a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth â I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexicanâs a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, âThe Equalizerâ) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing âChisum, John ChisumâŚâ⌠no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynnerâs famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (whoâd have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris âGuardians of the Galaxyâ Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent DâOnofrio, âJurassic Worldâ). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take âhisâ town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Fordâs Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentinoâs recent âHateful 8â was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). âThe Magnificent Sevenâ doesnât make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view â and I donât often tend in this direction â is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichĂŠd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity â with some whip-sharp lines â and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueenâŚ. Look up âreal manâ in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps âsellingâ was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven donât all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a âshare of the goldâ that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Hornerâs loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right â a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of âThe Return of the Sevenâ. I hope so⌠âthe Western is dead⌠long live the Westernâ!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexicanâs a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, âThe Equalizerâ) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing âChisum, John ChisumâŚâ⌠no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynnerâs famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (whoâd have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris âGuardians of the Galaxyâ Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent DâOnofrio, âJurassic Worldâ). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take âhisâ town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Fordâs Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentinoâs recent âHateful 8â was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). âThe Magnificent Sevenâ doesnât make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view â and I donât often tend in this direction â is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichĂŠd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity â with some whip-sharp lines â and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueenâŚ. Look up âreal manâ in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps âsellingâ was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven donât all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a âshare of the goldâ that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Hornerâs loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right â a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of âThe Return of the Sevenâ. I hope so⌠âthe Western is dead⌠long live the Westernâ!
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019
My entire childhood
So funny how seeing a "decked out" DeLorean in a Target parking lot the other day made me want to rewatch Back to the Future again soon. It had been on my rewatch list ever since I purchased the trilogy on Blu Ray on Black Friday, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
