Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Prom (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Ruined by James Corden
The Prom is the latest film from Glee creator Ryan Murphy, adapted from the Broadway musical of the same name. It follows Emma (Jo Ellen Pellman) who inadvertently causes her high school prom to be cancelled from wanting to attend with her girlfriend Alyssa (Ariana DeBose), in a school governed by a PTA that is very much against inclusion. Meanwhile on Broadway, four down on their luck actors (Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, James Corden and Andrew Rannells) pick up on Emma’s story and decide to use it as a perfect opportunity to garner some publicity for themselves by showing their support.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Next Door in Books
Jun 10, 2021
82 of 250
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together 😂
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too 😂😂
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my attics’!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didn’t finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasn’t catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although it’s a good lesson of don’t get involved with swinging neighbours 😂
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didn’t see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short I’m throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together 😂
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too 😂😂
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my attics’!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didn’t finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasn’t catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although it’s a good lesson of don’t get involved with swinging neighbours 😂
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didn’t see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short I’m throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
An out of the blue watch here, I had my fingers crossed for something a little lighthearted... and that's sort of what I received.
A challenge is issued, a competition that will see the mansion of tech billionaire Atticus Virtue gifted to the lucky winner. Chosen from his old school, five pupils enter to compete for the prize. As the evening goes on the games become increasingly dangerous and they find themselves fighting back against an advanced AI who's out to get them.
Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets feels like the kind of hybrid you'd get from crossing Willy Wonka with Ready Player One. All three films have the same sort of idea to them but convey it in their own quirky ways.
The story isn't the only classic idea the film capitalises on, we've also got your stereotypical group of teens thrown together end up having to work together to solve their problems. As they're introduced to us there was a little eye-roll on my part... we've got the computer nerd, the jock/musician, the social media icon, the gamer and the bully... but despite that eye-roll I quickly got over it as we progressed further in.
All these characters actually give us quite a well-balanced film, their introductions were handled quickly and clearly so it doesn't feel like a slog meeting them all, and jumping between characters/scene helps move the action along and keep you interested.
The acting from the younger members of the cast is pretty good when they're thrown in together, they all work well together and in scenes that could quite easily have become a little cheesy they manage to keep it quite sensible. We're treated to Marina Sirtis playing the AI running the mansion, I was amused by this casting, I don't think my brain could quite comprehend her in this role. The mansion's eccentric owner is played by Chad Michael Murray, I wish I could be a little more excited about him in this film but his brief appearances didn't rate highly with me. There weren't many moments when he was on screen where his performances weren't slightly awkward, at one point it felt like a script issue, but either way I was pleased that the main focus was one the younger actors.
Eye-rolling early on felt like it was becoming a habit, as the main storyline began it happened again. A moment occurs and you know that the information is going to be relevant later, you don't have to wait too long for an initial pay off to it either. I was worried that this would mean the ending of the film would be ruined but the pace from switching up between characters helps to drag you away from it.
Something I was a little surprised about was the tone of some of the scenes. When you start to watch the film it feels very much like a made for TV (that's not a negative comment, you know I love my made for TV movies!) family adventure affair, but some scenes are actually a little darker than would happily fit in that sort of film. Sitting at a 12A seems like the right level, had it been sanitised for younger viewers I think we'd have been left with something too tame to be good. (You could have pushed it further into the 15 and up area, but that would have put it in Escape Room territory and I'm not entirely sure we need more of that.)
Despite my eye-rolling and (many) unanswered questions that come from an adult watching a film not entirely made for them, I really enjoyed Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets. It's a fun watch, with some surprising little additions.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/max-winslow-and-house-of-secrets-movie.html
A challenge is issued, a competition that will see the mansion of tech billionaire Atticus Virtue gifted to the lucky winner. Chosen from his old school, five pupils enter to compete for the prize. As the evening goes on the games become increasingly dangerous and they find themselves fighting back against an advanced AI who's out to get them.
Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets feels like the kind of hybrid you'd get from crossing Willy Wonka with Ready Player One. All three films have the same sort of idea to them but convey it in their own quirky ways.
The story isn't the only classic idea the film capitalises on, we've also got your stereotypical group of teens thrown together end up having to work together to solve their problems. As they're introduced to us there was a little eye-roll on my part... we've got the computer nerd, the jock/musician, the social media icon, the gamer and the bully... but despite that eye-roll I quickly got over it as we progressed further in.
All these characters actually give us quite a well-balanced film, their introductions were handled quickly and clearly so it doesn't feel like a slog meeting them all, and jumping between characters/scene helps move the action along and keep you interested.
The acting from the younger members of the cast is pretty good when they're thrown in together, they all work well together and in scenes that could quite easily have become a little cheesy they manage to keep it quite sensible. We're treated to Marina Sirtis playing the AI running the mansion, I was amused by this casting, I don't think my brain could quite comprehend her in this role. The mansion's eccentric owner is played by Chad Michael Murray, I wish I could be a little more excited about him in this film but his brief appearances didn't rate highly with me. There weren't many moments when he was on screen where his performances weren't slightly awkward, at one point it felt like a script issue, but either way I was pleased that the main focus was one the younger actors.
Eye-rolling early on felt like it was becoming a habit, as the main storyline began it happened again. A moment occurs and you know that the information is going to be relevant later, you don't have to wait too long for an initial pay off to it either. I was worried that this would mean the ending of the film would be ruined but the pace from switching up between characters helps to drag you away from it.
Something I was a little surprised about was the tone of some of the scenes. When you start to watch the film it feels very much like a made for TV (that's not a negative comment, you know I love my made for TV movies!) family adventure affair, but some scenes are actually a little darker than would happily fit in that sort of film. Sitting at a 12A seems like the right level, had it been sanitised for younger viewers I think we'd have been left with something too tame to be good. (You could have pushed it further into the 15 and up area, but that would have put it in Escape Room territory and I'm not entirely sure we need more of that.)
Despite my eye-rolling and (many) unanswered questions that come from an adult watching a film not entirely made for them, I really enjoyed Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets. It's a fun watch, with some surprising little additions.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/max-winslow-and-house-of-secrets-movie.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Kristina (502 KP) rated It Ends With Us in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Holy mother of God. I don't know where to start, honestly. Colleen is very good at stunning me into silence, so it's difficult to put my emotions into words - which is why you'll notice I either have no reviews or pretty vague reviews for her books. But I just can't do that with this one. There's no way. What I read wrung me dry and had me staring at the wall for a full 5 minutes before I could even move. What Lily experiences is so real and raw, so emotional, I felt like I was her. Her thoughts were true to who she was and honest. As I read Lily's diary entries, I felt a kinship, because I had experienced some of the same growing up. I felt her fear, her worry, her anger, her curiosity. To watch your mother go through that is no fun. I found it endearing that Lily wrote her diary in the form of letters to Ellen DeGeneres - she's an awesome woman. I fell in love twice in the span of one book. Even though I hoped I was wrong, I had a strong premonition, and I was right about it. I truly wish I wasn't. After reading the Author's note, I completely agree with Colleen. I kind of wish she had written it differently; I kind of wish she hadn't used the plot that she did. But, as she also said, it would have ruined the whole point of writing this story, and I understand that. I still love the story, because it's beautiful (yet heartbreaking) in all its glory, and it gets the meaning across just the way Colleen meant it to. I'm ashamed to say I was like many of the others: "Why doesn't she just leave?" Sure, I questioned the opposite spouse, but this question has always been the first to enter my mind. After reading It Ends With Us, I feel even worse that I've ever had that thought. It's true, life isn't just black and white, and niether is any situation. We never truly know what it's like for anyone unless we were in that same situation - and no two situations are exactly alike. All I can say is that while I fell in love twice, my heart broke a million times, and it still didn't feel completely whole by the time the story ended. I do hope Colleen decides to write a short novella about Lily's future, because I feel like I need more closure. My heart needs more closure. Nothing could have prepared me for this book and I have absolutely no regrets about going in blind. The Queen never ceases to amaze me. Once again, I'm adding a CoHo book to my favorites shelf. Bravo, Colleen.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
With a run time of 1 hour 34 minutes, and such a fast flowing story line, you certainly don't feel like you're bored at any point during Mile 22. There were plenty of times where I was confused, and a couple where I was amused, but never bored.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2019
Another DC Win
When a foster kid runs into an ancient wizard, he suddenly finds that he can turn himself into a superhero by uttering a simple word: Shazam! DC has run into a fair share of buzz saws when it comes to making quality movies, but chalk one up on the positive side with this one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Roxanne (13 KP) rated Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight in Books
Nov 14, 2018
<b>*This review contains possible spoilers as I will be using quotes*</b>
I thought I would mention that I am rating my enjoyment of this book which is 2 stars; if I was to rate the personality of the author I would be giving it minus stars.
This book made me feel very uncomfortable in places and so I could not give this a higher rating because I did not enjoy it, I found it interesting but not enjoyable.
I was only a few pages in when I came across intentional animal cruelty where this horrible woman attempts to drown an Opossum...animal abuse is something I will not tolerate no matter if you cover it up by saying you're 'ill'. This person is not humane and refused to help this defenseless creature due to it's safety not being an <i>"upside for me"</i>. And it gets worse...
<img src="http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/greenliving/uploads/2012/03/baby-virginia-opossum.jpg"; width="280" height="160"/>
<b>Look at that face! Look at it!</b>
I am truly disgusted by that behaviour and the behaviour that follows throughout the whole of the book, she goes on to say how she is not crazy, dangerous or a murderer...yet she does that.
Would it put me and her on the same path if I reacted in anger?
<img src="http://media3.giphy.com/media/2vCA7jpfORJoA/200_s.gif"; width="250" height="160"/>
Naaaaaah...I think it's justified.
She attempts to argue whether her sociopathic traits are a result of 'nature' or 'nuture' and blames the family tree for her unsociable ways as her grandfather was <i>exceptionally cold</i>, on the other hand, I have never met (or read about) someone so full of themself...NEVER EVER...I'm surprised that she can fit her head through doors. She uses this 'God like' view of herself to look down upon others, including insulting the reader by saying how much more intelligent she is compared to you. Face reality...why on earth would anyone choose to read your book if you're just out to offend them? (I realize this comes with being 'a sociopath') but I wanted the whys and hows...not to be offended.
<img src="http://sarahsaysreadbooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/not-interested.gif?w=500"; width="200" height="160"/>
M.E Thomas will only enter situations if it will benefit her, this includes making friends where she will seek out their weaknesses to eventually use against them...just for fun, she says <i>"I like to imagine that I have ruined people"</i> and she likes to humour people for her own personal gain. Thomas sees this as a great strength and believes others wish to be like her as she feels a lot less emotion and remorse than the majority of other people; <i>"Normal people feel emotions that I simply don't"</i> she pities us, whereas I pity her.
Another thing that she did which I found disgusting was abandoning a friend who was upset as her dad had cancer...yes you read that right... abandoned a <b>friend</b> because her dad had <b>CANCER</b>.
<img src="http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/shock-gif.gif"; width="230" height="160"/>
She thought the behaviour was acceptable as she <i>routinely disposed of people once their burden to me exceeded their utility</i>. Another example of 'friend abuse' would be towards her openly gay female coworker, who was adopted as a child, where Thomas gathered as much information as possible about her in order to destroy her...nice.
People like Thomas are the ones who I wish to avoid at all costs! I admit I have met my fair share of sociopaths as I believe I am picked out by them due to being easily manipulated, however, as I mature I hope to change that. She is nothing but a bully who tears people to pieces, picking on those with disabilities saying because of this 'weakness' they were just asking for a slap. Thomas is the only one here who is asking for a slap!
I admit the book was interesting, I was able to understand more about sociopaths and what to look out for so I can avoid them...that is all.
<img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb0875f182f29fa753415dcd6a5812a5/tumblr_n4kc2ffJui1txb8sho1_500.gif"; width="280" height="160"/>
I thought I would mention that I am rating my enjoyment of this book which is 2 stars; if I was to rate the personality of the author I would be giving it minus stars.
This book made me feel very uncomfortable in places and so I could not give this a higher rating because I did not enjoy it, I found it interesting but not enjoyable.
I was only a few pages in when I came across intentional animal cruelty where this horrible woman attempts to drown an Opossum...animal abuse is something I will not tolerate no matter if you cover it up by saying you're 'ill'. This person is not humane and refused to help this defenseless creature due to it's safety not being an <i>"upside for me"</i>. And it gets worse...
<img src="http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/greenliving/uploads/2012/03/baby-virginia-opossum.jpg"; width="280" height="160"/>
<b>Look at that face! Look at it!</b>
I am truly disgusted by that behaviour and the behaviour that follows throughout the whole of the book, she goes on to say how she is not crazy, dangerous or a murderer...yet she does that.
Would it put me and her on the same path if I reacted in anger?
<img src="http://media3.giphy.com/media/2vCA7jpfORJoA/200_s.gif"; width="250" height="160"/>
Naaaaaah...I think it's justified.
She attempts to argue whether her sociopathic traits are a result of 'nature' or 'nuture' and blames the family tree for her unsociable ways as her grandfather was <i>exceptionally cold</i>, on the other hand, I have never met (or read about) someone so full of themself...NEVER EVER...I'm surprised that she can fit her head through doors. She uses this 'God like' view of herself to look down upon others, including insulting the reader by saying how much more intelligent she is compared to you. Face reality...why on earth would anyone choose to read your book if you're just out to offend them? (I realize this comes with being 'a sociopath') but I wanted the whys and hows...not to be offended.
<img src="http://sarahsaysreadbooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/not-interested.gif?w=500"; width="200" height="160"/>
M.E Thomas will only enter situations if it will benefit her, this includes making friends where she will seek out their weaknesses to eventually use against them...just for fun, she says <i>"I like to imagine that I have ruined people"</i> and she likes to humour people for her own personal gain. Thomas sees this as a great strength and believes others wish to be like her as she feels a lot less emotion and remorse than the majority of other people; <i>"Normal people feel emotions that I simply don't"</i> she pities us, whereas I pity her.
Another thing that she did which I found disgusting was abandoning a friend who was upset as her dad had cancer...yes you read that right... abandoned a <b>friend</b> because her dad had <b>CANCER</b>.
<img src="http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/shock-gif.gif"; width="230" height="160"/>
She thought the behaviour was acceptable as she <i>routinely disposed of people once their burden to me exceeded their utility</i>. Another example of 'friend abuse' would be towards her openly gay female coworker, who was adopted as a child, where Thomas gathered as much information as possible about her in order to destroy her...nice.
People like Thomas are the ones who I wish to avoid at all costs! I admit I have met my fair share of sociopaths as I believe I am picked out by them due to being easily manipulated, however, as I mature I hope to change that. She is nothing but a bully who tears people to pieces, picking on those with disabilities saying because of this 'weakness' they were just asking for a slap. Thomas is the only one here who is asking for a slap!
I admit the book was interesting, I was able to understand more about sociopaths and what to look out for so I can avoid them...that is all.
<img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb0875f182f29fa753415dcd6a5812a5/tumblr_n4kc2ffJui1txb8sho1_500.gif"; width="280" height="160"/>
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/