Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
“Today, we are cancelling the apocalypse” barks Idris Elba’s Stacker Pentecost in the trailer for Pacific Rim, but it’s over 90 minutes in when you finally hear him utter that attention grabbing phrase in a movie so big, it will make your head spin. But is it worth the migraine?
In short, the answer is yes. Director Guillermo del Toro has created a monster movie that utilises themes from many other ‘classic’ films, giving it an old fashioned feel, whilst still making it incredibly fresh and unique.
The story is simple, but don’t let it fool you into thinking it’ll be a one dimensional ride from A to B, Pacific Rim is much more than that, it’s a big blockbuster most definitely, but it also gets the subtleties right; it has a heart. We begin with a Shakespearean narration by Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnan) who tells us about a war breaking out between humans and the Kaiju, a race of monsters from deep within the Pacific Ocean, and the only way to beat them is to bring in the heavy metal. Enter the Jaeger program, a series of gigantic robots built across the world to defend Earth against the terrifying creatures.
Whilst piloting a Jaeger, you are connected with a co-pilot who can see memories in a ‘drift’, a kind of telepathy which can be deadly for those around you if you ‘chase the rabbit’ and trap yourself in a memory which has caused distress. After all, you’re piloting a giant robot with laser beams, swords and over 100 diesel engines in some cases.
Hunnan’s character Raleigh is distraught after an incident with a Kaiju, so much so that he leaves the program and thinks he will never have to return. Unfortunately, he is very wrong and after five years he is back and, to cut a long story short, is teamed up with a rookie pilot in the shape of Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) to put an end to the forthcoming invasion.
The film borrows heavily from other similar-minded movies like Cloverfield and Transformers and there’s even a subtle nod to Jurassic Park, see if you can spot it, but yet del Toro always manages to make the film feel new, exciting and exceptionally fresh. Never before have we seen all of these regularly used components together, and it adds an interesting new dynamic to a film which could’ve been run of the mill.
Acting is a mixed bag; Idris Elba is excellent in his role as Pentecost and shows why he is like catnip to directors at the moment. Rinko Kikuchi is understated in her large role but plays the character well; we feel her innocence before her ‘drift virginity’ is taken. There is also one scene involving a younger version of Mori which is by far the most poignant in the entire film. For comic relief, of which there is a surprising amount in a film about the destruction of the globe, we have a del Toro staple, Ron Perlman, who plays a black market dealer roped in to help the cause and locate a Kaiju brain. Rob Kazinsky (True Blood) and Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses) also star, with the latter providing some of the films best lines.
The special effects are truly exceptional, in films this big there can sometimes be a few shoddy scenes to cut costs in the hope that audiences don’t notice but not here; everything is stunning – from the computer generated Jaegers and the computer generated Kaiju, to the CGI recreations of Hong Kong and other destinations across the globe, it truly is beautiful to watch. Couple this with an absolutely mind-blowing soundtrack and each frame has either a tantalising musical score or a piece of eye-popping visual.
However, after an initially exciting opening, we are treated to a first-act lull from which the film takes a good 30 minutes to recover from, this being the most disappointing thing in the entire movie. The lull is used to good effect though, as we learn more about the lead characters and the Jaeger program itself, but 30 minutes in a 2 hour film is a little too long to wait for the action to restart.
Overall, Pacific Rim is everything a big summer blockbuster should be, it has beautiful special effects, excellent performances and a decent story mixed with a superb soundtrack. We’ve seen it all before, but in separate films, so to put everything together was a brave move on behalf of del Toro and it works brilliantly. It’s a little too long and the first-act lull is disappointing, but in the end it all ties together nicely as pure popcorn entertainment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/07/13/pacific-rim-review-2013/
In short, the answer is yes. Director Guillermo del Toro has created a monster movie that utilises themes from many other ‘classic’ films, giving it an old fashioned feel, whilst still making it incredibly fresh and unique.
The story is simple, but don’t let it fool you into thinking it’ll be a one dimensional ride from A to B, Pacific Rim is much more than that, it’s a big blockbuster most definitely, but it also gets the subtleties right; it has a heart. We begin with a Shakespearean narration by Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnan) who tells us about a war breaking out between humans and the Kaiju, a race of monsters from deep within the Pacific Ocean, and the only way to beat them is to bring in the heavy metal. Enter the Jaeger program, a series of gigantic robots built across the world to defend Earth against the terrifying creatures.
Whilst piloting a Jaeger, you are connected with a co-pilot who can see memories in a ‘drift’, a kind of telepathy which can be deadly for those around you if you ‘chase the rabbit’ and trap yourself in a memory which has caused distress. After all, you’re piloting a giant robot with laser beams, swords and over 100 diesel engines in some cases.
Hunnan’s character Raleigh is distraught after an incident with a Kaiju, so much so that he leaves the program and thinks he will never have to return. Unfortunately, he is very wrong and after five years he is back and, to cut a long story short, is teamed up with a rookie pilot in the shape of Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) to put an end to the forthcoming invasion.
The film borrows heavily from other similar-minded movies like Cloverfield and Transformers and there’s even a subtle nod to Jurassic Park, see if you can spot it, but yet del Toro always manages to make the film feel new, exciting and exceptionally fresh. Never before have we seen all of these regularly used components together, and it adds an interesting new dynamic to a film which could’ve been run of the mill.
Acting is a mixed bag; Idris Elba is excellent in his role as Pentecost and shows why he is like catnip to directors at the moment. Rinko Kikuchi is understated in her large role but plays the character well; we feel her innocence before her ‘drift virginity’ is taken. There is also one scene involving a younger version of Mori which is by far the most poignant in the entire film. For comic relief, of which there is a surprising amount in a film about the destruction of the globe, we have a del Toro staple, Ron Perlman, who plays a black market dealer roped in to help the cause and locate a Kaiju brain. Rob Kazinsky (True Blood) and Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses) also star, with the latter providing some of the films best lines.
The special effects are truly exceptional, in films this big there can sometimes be a few shoddy scenes to cut costs in the hope that audiences don’t notice but not here; everything is stunning – from the computer generated Jaegers and the computer generated Kaiju, to the CGI recreations of Hong Kong and other destinations across the globe, it truly is beautiful to watch. Couple this with an absolutely mind-blowing soundtrack and each frame has either a tantalising musical score or a piece of eye-popping visual.
However, after an initially exciting opening, we are treated to a first-act lull from which the film takes a good 30 minutes to recover from, this being the most disappointing thing in the entire movie. The lull is used to good effect though, as we learn more about the lead characters and the Jaeger program itself, but 30 minutes in a 2 hour film is a little too long to wait for the action to restart.
Overall, Pacific Rim is everything a big summer blockbuster should be, it has beautiful special effects, excellent performances and a decent story mixed with a superb soundtrack. We’ve seen it all before, but in separate films, so to put everything together was a brave move on behalf of del Toro and it works brilliantly. It’s a little too long and the first-act lull is disappointing, but in the end it all ties together nicely as pure popcorn entertainment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/07/13/pacific-rim-review-2013/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated By Magic Beguiled in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Many a man has died of longing for one such as her. For her skin has the flavor of honey which contains a magic all its own. Once a man’s lips taste her nectar, he is bound to her for all his days. Be forewarned, then, for her spell cannot be broken. Look for the sign of the cradle moon above the mound of Venus. Be it pale, you might yet escape with our heart and mind intact. But be it crimson, she is of royal blood, and too strong for a mortal man’s resistance.
Brigit Malone can paint anything she sees, and uses that skill to get herself and her best friend, Razor Face Malone, off the streets. Living the straight life is good until an old enemy kidnaps Raze and demands Brigit forge a privately owned painting, switch the fake for the original, and deliver it. But that painting is the prize possession of Adam Reid, a good man betrayed one too many times. Not only that, but Brigit has seen him before in her dreams. Hurting him is unbearable, but so is leaving Raze in danger.
Neither of them realize the images in the painting are actually a message from the twin sister Brigit doesn’t know she has, a message calling her back to the enchanted kingdom of Rush, where the two half fay twins are destined to put down the usurping Dark Prince Tristan and restore peace to their home, the distant land of Rush.
This book was just what I needed. It’s an epic adventure with romance, deception, and magic. Adam Reid is breath-takingly sexy, and Brigit is wonderfully strong and graceful, like a fairy should be.
However, Adam isn’t inclined to believe in love, let alone fairies. After his terrible childhood with an abusive father, his money was stolen by his ex wife, leaving him a jaded and cynical man about the world and very distrustful of humans. His sadness translates really well on the page and it’s really easy to feel for him, even when he’s complaining about only being able to afford a once-a-week cleaning service instead of a live-in maid. Despite his crankiness and need to be a cynic, you can’t help but want him to find true love and happiness.
Brigit is similarly disillusioned about life. After living homeless on the streets for several years, she succumbed to be an art forger to care for Raze, an old man who had saved her from a fire, and acted like a father to her. Now she was struggling to put the past behind her by running a florist shop. Unfortunately she will have no choice but to go back.to being an art forger to save Raze from one of her old enemies. And this means she needs to rob Adam Reid of the painting.
Adam’s first impression of Brigit is well illustrated and on point with the magic ability of fairies, especially those of royal blood.
She was incredible, and because her eyes sucked him in like quicksand, and because he had the oddest feeling that he knew her. Or should know her.
I love that this story isn’t insta-love, despite the Lure that Brigit gives off, magic that makes men fall in love with her. Yes, Adam does obsess with her a bit at first, but there is so much distrust in him that he doesn’t fall to her charms too quickly. And the plot is fantastic, right up to the heart-wrenching climax. Even though there’s very little magic and supernatural elements in the first book of this duo, it’s still there. Adult fantasy and fairytale lovers will enjoy this book as much as I did.
Brigit Malone can paint anything she sees, and uses that skill to get herself and her best friend, Razor Face Malone, off the streets. Living the straight life is good until an old enemy kidnaps Raze and demands Brigit forge a privately owned painting, switch the fake for the original, and deliver it. But that painting is the prize possession of Adam Reid, a good man betrayed one too many times. Not only that, but Brigit has seen him before in her dreams. Hurting him is unbearable, but so is leaving Raze in danger.
Neither of them realize the images in the painting are actually a message from the twin sister Brigit doesn’t know she has, a message calling her back to the enchanted kingdom of Rush, where the two half fay twins are destined to put down the usurping Dark Prince Tristan and restore peace to their home, the distant land of Rush.
This book was just what I needed. It’s an epic adventure with romance, deception, and magic. Adam Reid is breath-takingly sexy, and Brigit is wonderfully strong and graceful, like a fairy should be.
However, Adam isn’t inclined to believe in love, let alone fairies. After his terrible childhood with an abusive father, his money was stolen by his ex wife, leaving him a jaded and cynical man about the world and very distrustful of humans. His sadness translates really well on the page and it’s really easy to feel for him, even when he’s complaining about only being able to afford a once-a-week cleaning service instead of a live-in maid. Despite his crankiness and need to be a cynic, you can’t help but want him to find true love and happiness.
Brigit is similarly disillusioned about life. After living homeless on the streets for several years, she succumbed to be an art forger to care for Raze, an old man who had saved her from a fire, and acted like a father to her. Now she was struggling to put the past behind her by running a florist shop. Unfortunately she will have no choice but to go back.to being an art forger to save Raze from one of her old enemies. And this means she needs to rob Adam Reid of the painting.
Adam’s first impression of Brigit is well illustrated and on point with the magic ability of fairies, especially those of royal blood.
She was incredible, and because her eyes sucked him in like quicksand, and because he had the oddest feeling that he knew her. Or should know her.
I love that this story isn’t insta-love, despite the Lure that Brigit gives off, magic that makes men fall in love with her. Yes, Adam does obsess with her a bit at first, but there is so much distrust in him that he doesn’t fall to her charms too quickly. And the plot is fantastic, right up to the heart-wrenching climax. Even though there’s very little magic and supernatural elements in the first book of this duo, it’s still there. Adult fantasy and fairytale lovers will enjoy this book as much as I did.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Carniepunk in Books
Mar 1, 2018
As soon as I read about this collection on Kevin Hearne's Facebook, I knew I would be buying it. I don't care for carnivals at all, and every story will be related to one in some way - but there was just no way I was going to miss an Atticus and Oberon story! I even pre-ordered the book on Amazon, the first time I've ever done that. It was SO hard not to skip right ahead and read Hearne's contribution the moment the book was in my hot little hands, but I managed some discipline.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Mothergamer (1511 KP) rated Birth of the Dragon (2016) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
At first I was curious about the movie that was meant to be about Bruce Lee titled Birth of the Dragon. I love Bruce Lee. I grew up watching his movies, I watched episodes of The Green Hornet, and I voraciously read everything I could about him. One of my titos (that's Tagalog for uncle) told me about how he met Bruce Lee before and how kind he was. I am Filipino and white so I grew up with both these cultures and I'm grateful for it. My family has all kinds of people from all over and all walks of life and I love them dearly. When I would visit my Filipino family I loved that we would often gather round together on the couch with popcorn and snacks and watch Bruce Lee movies. This was special and it's one of my favorite memories from my childhood. I would watch Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid and I would be excited when they would feature a Bruce Lee movie. My grandparents weren't really into it, but they would watch with me and my brother Rob sometimes.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Stranger on the Beach in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Caroline Stark is proud of her new gorgeous beach house, carefully designed for vacationing and showcasing her perfect family. But that perfect life is crumbling around her. At a party debuting the home, her husband of 20 years, Jason, shows up with another woman. Her daughter, Hannah, is off at college now and doesn't need her. When Caroline, spots Aidan Callahan, a local bartender, watching her from the beach outside her home, she wonders if he's casing her house. Then Aidan is the bartender at her party. But as her marriage falls apart around her, Caroline finds herself turning to the much younger Aidan for support. They have a one-night-stand; then Caroline thinks there's a chance she can reconcile with Paul, her husband. But Aidan is obsessed with Caroline, calling her constantly and following her everywhere. Suddenly Caroline doesn't feel safe. She jokingly told Aidan to get rid of her husband, but she meant it as an anger-fueled joke. But will the obsessed younger man see it that way?
I'd heard a lot of excited buzz about this one and was looking forward to reading it, but--unpopular opinion time--this one wasn't one for me. I kept waiting the entire time for the book to excite me or draw me in, but I found it irritating and predictable. (I know! I'm sorry!) I figured out immediately how things were going to play out and then read it hoping I was wrong. I was not.
The shtick in this one is that it's told from both Caroline and Aidan's perspectives. We get most of the same events filtered through each of their lenses. It's clear early on that we're dealing with unreliable narrators. Either one or both of them are not telling us the whole truth. The problem with this is that it's also really freaking repetitive. I don't want to hear the same thing told to me twice, with a bit of a twist. I also didn't care for Caroline. She's annoying. The woman did not make smart decisions, and she couldn't even find the breaker box in her own home. I'm sorry, even if you're "not handy," be able to manage basic things. (I may have some pent up anger against Caroline to deal with.)
"There was a stranger on the beach. He was standing in front of my house, staring at it like he was casing it to rob. Sometimes fate sneaks up on you. But Aidan Callahan didn't sneak up on me. He was brazen. He stood there in the middle of the sand, staring up at my brand-speaking-new beachfront house, looking like he was up to no good."
As for Aidan, we have to hear about a million times about a previous violent incident involving his best friend. I don't know why. I was just over the repeating of things, in all forms. Aidan's brother is the Chief of Police in the small town where Caroline has built her beach house, and he's basically struggling to rebuild his life. I definitely felt more sympathy toward him, but also annoyance, because his obsession toward Caroline was just that, an obsession, and nothing good was going to come from this. From any of this! Just go home, dude, and stay out of trouble. She is so not worth it.
"Caroline. She was his good-luck charm, come to rescue him, and he loved her for it. Hell, he plain loved her, as she sat there laughing, her skin glowing, tendrils of golden hair curling around her face."
About 3/4 through the book, the perspective changes a little and things picked up a bit, but by then I was too irritated to be truly glad. I had also guessed everything from the beginning and this shift did nothing to alter that or surprise me, so yes. Sigh. There's definitely some drama in this one, but it felt forced to me. Oh, the power goes out just as you arrive at your beach house on the run? Wow!
Anyway, most people really love this book, and so take my bad mood review with a grain of salt. Hopefully you will love it much more than me! 2.5 stars.
I'd heard a lot of excited buzz about this one and was looking forward to reading it, but--unpopular opinion time--this one wasn't one for me. I kept waiting the entire time for the book to excite me or draw me in, but I found it irritating and predictable. (I know! I'm sorry!) I figured out immediately how things were going to play out and then read it hoping I was wrong. I was not.
The shtick in this one is that it's told from both Caroline and Aidan's perspectives. We get most of the same events filtered through each of their lenses. It's clear early on that we're dealing with unreliable narrators. Either one or both of them are not telling us the whole truth. The problem with this is that it's also really freaking repetitive. I don't want to hear the same thing told to me twice, with a bit of a twist. I also didn't care for Caroline. She's annoying. The woman did not make smart decisions, and she couldn't even find the breaker box in her own home. I'm sorry, even if you're "not handy," be able to manage basic things. (I may have some pent up anger against Caroline to deal with.)
"There was a stranger on the beach. He was standing in front of my house, staring at it like he was casing it to rob. Sometimes fate sneaks up on you. But Aidan Callahan didn't sneak up on me. He was brazen. He stood there in the middle of the sand, staring up at my brand-speaking-new beachfront house, looking like he was up to no good."
As for Aidan, we have to hear about a million times about a previous violent incident involving his best friend. I don't know why. I was just over the repeating of things, in all forms. Aidan's brother is the Chief of Police in the small town where Caroline has built her beach house, and he's basically struggling to rebuild his life. I definitely felt more sympathy toward him, but also annoyance, because his obsession toward Caroline was just that, an obsession, and nothing good was going to come from this. From any of this! Just go home, dude, and stay out of trouble. She is so not worth it.
"Caroline. She was his good-luck charm, come to rescue him, and he loved her for it. Hell, he plain loved her, as she sat there laughing, her skin glowing, tendrils of golden hair curling around her face."
About 3/4 through the book, the perspective changes a little and things picked up a bit, but by then I was too irritated to be truly glad. I had also guessed everything from the beginning and this shift did nothing to alter that or surprise me, so yes. Sigh. There's definitely some drama in this one, but it felt forced to me. Oh, the power goes out just as you arrive at your beach house on the run? Wow!
Anyway, most people really love this book, and so take my bad mood review with a grain of salt. Hopefully you will love it much more than me! 2.5 stars.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A summer film so cool that air-con is optional.
Sorry for the lack of posts folks…. with a holiday in sunny Portugal, I’ve not been to the pics for weeks!
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.