Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
And you thought Tenet's timey wimey stuff was confusing?
Thirty-One years after the first Bill and Ted movie, and 29 years after the slightly disappointing sequel, the dudes are back for a three-quel. Older... but not much wiser.
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Unhinged (Splintered #2) in Books
Jun 24, 2019
Ah, the cliffhanger!
As you probably know, I am completely infatuated with anything Wonderland, hence my love for A.G. Howard's Splintered series. At first, I didn't know there were more books - I just thought Splintered was a lone novel. Imagine my joy when my dad bought the whole series!
So following Alyssa's adventure down the rabbit hole last summer, Unhinged follows the netherling queen through her day-to-day human life. As she vowed last summer, she hasn't used a single insect in her artwork - in fact, her mosaics are now being created out of her own blood. Thanks to her crown magic, these pieces feature images from the future, but Alyssa doesn't know their true importance quite yet.
I don't want to give too much of the story away, but Morpheus arrives in the human realm - and he isn't alone. As the queen of the Red court, Alyssa must save Wonderland - and defeat Red. It doesn't sound easy, and yet it still proves easier said than done.
Worst of all, it isn't just Wonderland that is now in danger. The whole of the human realm is now at risk, thanks to the netherlings that have left the rabbit hole. Alyssa's boyfriend goes missing, and her mother's secrets begin to emerge, giving a new depth to Alyssa's problems.
I really do love this series. The Wonderland vibe has really been captured, with all its great eccentricity intact. Every little twist on the classic novel is fantastic, and every character is so wonderfully unique.
Expanding on my point about the characters, I am even more in love with Morpheus than I was at the end of the first book. His mixed emotions continue throughout the book, but there are some lovely insights into his true feelings. There is such a great depth to Morpheus's character! Alyssa realises that too, and her own feelings begin to surface more after she is told of Ivory's vision.
Jeb is clearly very fond of Alyssa, but he's caught up in his own little situation with his artwork. This leads to a little bit of trouble... But once he has his memories of Wonderland back, Jeb is back to being overly protective of his girlfriend. He's as defensive in this sequel as he was in the first book.
And Alyssa. Ah, Alyssa... She's finally accepted her mad side. She's accepted herself for all that she is, and although she faces a few rough patches, this acceptance helps her through her battle. But as much magic as Alyssa uses, there's nothing she can do to change the fate of her friends and family...
The ending was superb. Like last time, I just want to read on! I wasn't expecting Alison, Morpheus and Jeb to all get taken away, and I was certainly not expecting Alyssa to end up in her mother's shoes - or rather, her straitjacket.
As expected, this book joins Splintered in my favourites list. It's wonderfully weird, even without Alyssa falling down the rabbit hole. The characters are fantastic, and each netherling is so unique and crazy and great. 5 stars for this, of course!
BookMarked
As you probably know, I am completely infatuated with anything Wonderland, hence my love for A.G. Howard's Splintered series. At first, I didn't know there were more books - I just thought Splintered was a lone novel. Imagine my joy when my dad bought the whole series!
So following Alyssa's adventure down the rabbit hole last summer, Unhinged follows the netherling queen through her day-to-day human life. As she vowed last summer, she hasn't used a single insect in her artwork - in fact, her mosaics are now being created out of her own blood. Thanks to her crown magic, these pieces feature images from the future, but Alyssa doesn't know their true importance quite yet.
I don't want to give too much of the story away, but Morpheus arrives in the human realm - and he isn't alone. As the queen of the Red court, Alyssa must save Wonderland - and defeat Red. It doesn't sound easy, and yet it still proves easier said than done.
Worst of all, it isn't just Wonderland that is now in danger. The whole of the human realm is now at risk, thanks to the netherlings that have left the rabbit hole. Alyssa's boyfriend goes missing, and her mother's secrets begin to emerge, giving a new depth to Alyssa's problems.
I really do love this series. The Wonderland vibe has really been captured, with all its great eccentricity intact. Every little twist on the classic novel is fantastic, and every character is so wonderfully unique.
Expanding on my point about the characters, I am even more in love with Morpheus than I was at the end of the first book. His mixed emotions continue throughout the book, but there are some lovely insights into his true feelings. There is such a great depth to Morpheus's character! Alyssa realises that too, and her own feelings begin to surface more after she is told of Ivory's vision.
Jeb is clearly very fond of Alyssa, but he's caught up in his own little situation with his artwork. This leads to a little bit of trouble... But once he has his memories of Wonderland back, Jeb is back to being overly protective of his girlfriend. He's as defensive in this sequel as he was in the first book.
And Alyssa. Ah, Alyssa... She's finally accepted her mad side. She's accepted herself for all that she is, and although she faces a few rough patches, this acceptance helps her through her battle. But as much magic as Alyssa uses, there's nothing she can do to change the fate of her friends and family...
The ending was superb. Like last time, I just want to read on! I wasn't expecting Alison, Morpheus and Jeb to all get taken away, and I was certainly not expecting Alyssa to end up in her mother's shoes - or rather, her straitjacket.
As expected, this book joins Splintered in my favourites list. It's wonderfully weird, even without Alyssa falling down the rabbit hole. The characters are fantastic, and each netherling is so unique and crazy and great. 5 stars for this, of course!
BookMarked
Super-violent fighting "action"
I've never seen the original Baki the Grappler series. But on a recommendation from a friend, I decided to watch this one, which is apparently a sequel to the other. Although I feel you don't need to have watched the original, I feel there were a few parts in this one that would have had more meaning if I had seen the original.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
Best Fiends Forever
Games
App
Get ready for the very big adventure with very small heroes! The sequel to the...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
Jun 1, 2022
The very definition of "Summer Flick"
There is absolutely no denying it - TOP GUN: MAVERICK is the very definition of a “Summer Blockbuster” movie - the kind of film that will appeal to a wide variety of audiences who want nothing more than to escape into a world of heroes (and villains), good vs. evil, with lots of fast chases and things exploding.
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 12, 2022
Less Is More - And It Works!
In 1987, at the height of the ‘80’s action movie craze with the likes of Stallone, Van Damme, Segal, Norris and Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with what on the surface looked like a throw away macho, sci-fi action flick, PREDATOR. What it turned out to be was one of the all-time classic action films.
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
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.