Search
Search results
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
It took me over a month to get around to seeing this last night at the cinema. Not because I didn’t want to see the end of the new trilogy and say goodbye to it in style, but because I feared it just wouldn’t be very good. Put simply, it isn’t very good. Some parts, in fact, are downright awful. But it isn’t terrible either. I can’t say I hated it – I had fun; I enjoyed it for what it was, and some small moments in isolation were very well done indeed. However…
The first thing that struck me was the pace and editing style, which seemed at last to fully embrace a Disney theme park ethos of let’s get to it and keep it moving. No notion of setting mood and re-establishing character, but rather a sense of we have a lot to fit in here so let’s get it out of the way as quickly as possible. It didn’t feel to me like it was allowed to sit at any point and just be brooding, or meaningful in any way. Which may work for the short attention spans of your average 9 year old, but for older fans who have literally waited 42 years to see an ending, it felt rushed, trivial and far too flippant.
The spectacle was very much there still. The landscape of alien worlds, creatures, droids and other necessary weirdness is all there in spades! It just feels like you would need to go back and press the pause button to see it all. And before we know what is happening (or why), Palpatine is back in business and everyone is looking for some lame GPS green triangle thingy. Forget almost everything in the story that has led to this point, this is an adventure that exists in a vacuum of space, and you either shrug and go with it, or get very annoyed. I chose the shrug.
Before we really settle into what is going on, we start to see the power of The Force flowing through Rey in ways it has never done before… she can heal, she virtually flies, and she can even teleport objects to a different physical place at will. She has become more like Neo from The Matrix than anything Skywalker. More like a Marvel superhero than anything grounded in an ancient mysticism that acts subtly at moments of great need. What that does is immediately lower the stakes, because if anything is possible, and therefore probable, there is no threat of failure. And if this movie lacks anything essential it is threat.
That said, the reanimation of Emperor Palpatine was nicely creepy, at least in a visual and vocal sense. And the journey of the excellent Adam Driver as Ben Solo / Kylo Ren remained the most interesting and satisfying thing about the whole reboot. I found myself just wanting to focus on him more and more, and felt frustrated when, typically, his key progression moments were over too soon or given away too cheaply from a dramatic context.
I have mixed feelings also about the level of mirroring and call-backs to moments from previous films. Some really worked, but many fell flat. It began to feel like a greatest hits checklist, which, of course, was a criticism of JJ Abrams’ directing style in The Force Awakens, too. He has been so much more concerned with giving fans sugary little treats, as opposed to cooking up a satisfying meal that nourishes in it’s own right – indicative of a 21st century audience that often demands its pudding before it has finished its greens.
Look, I enjoy a nostalgia trip as much as the next uber-geek, but I do also like my fantasy sci-fi to be based on an idea of weight and gravitas. Eschew that aspect and the climax is going to fall a little flat… which, I think it did. Our empathy for Rey, and in fact all of the new gang, is simply not as strong as it should have been. Daisy Ridley does a decent job, and I don’t blame her at all – I have no problem with any of the supporting cast either, but what a shame too many of them almost fade away into mere scene dressing by the end.
Very telling then, that my favourite bit by far was a 15 minute giggling fit brought on by that one, already infamous detail, when tiny weirdo Babu Frik completely misses the mood of the room and screeches his “Hey Heeeeeey!” Only to pop up again later with an equally hilarious repeat. Probably the funniest moment in any Star Wars film, bar none. Worth the ticket price alone, and I am still having regular flashbacks that leave me in fits of laughter!
So, that’s it is it? Over and done with? Well, they certainly wrapped it up in a bow, coming full circle in fairly satisfying style. With just a cheeky hint that the roots of a continuation at some point are buried within shallow reach. No doubt, amateur writers everywhere have already had a pop at what happens next. The Force is balanced, the prophecy fulfilled, but it wouldn’t take much to tip the galaxy back into turmoil, as soon as Disney fancies another few billion in ticket sales.
Personally, I don’t want to be cynical about a franchise that has been a part of me since I was 3 years old, and been such a good friend. However, I am perfectly fine with having it remain as a source for backstories and origin tales. The main saga is over, so let’s leave it alone. Episodes IV – VI will always remain the best; they won’t go anywhere. So any shortcomings can be easily solved… just watch The Empire Strikes Back again, not worrying about anything else, but revelling in just how perfect it is, and how lucky we are that it is there for us.
The first thing that struck me was the pace and editing style, which seemed at last to fully embrace a Disney theme park ethos of let’s get to it and keep it moving. No notion of setting mood and re-establishing character, but rather a sense of we have a lot to fit in here so let’s get it out of the way as quickly as possible. It didn’t feel to me like it was allowed to sit at any point and just be brooding, or meaningful in any way. Which may work for the short attention spans of your average 9 year old, but for older fans who have literally waited 42 years to see an ending, it felt rushed, trivial and far too flippant.
The spectacle was very much there still. The landscape of alien worlds, creatures, droids and other necessary weirdness is all there in spades! It just feels like you would need to go back and press the pause button to see it all. And before we know what is happening (or why), Palpatine is back in business and everyone is looking for some lame GPS green triangle thingy. Forget almost everything in the story that has led to this point, this is an adventure that exists in a vacuum of space, and you either shrug and go with it, or get very annoyed. I chose the shrug.
Before we really settle into what is going on, we start to see the power of The Force flowing through Rey in ways it has never done before… she can heal, she virtually flies, and she can even teleport objects to a different physical place at will. She has become more like Neo from The Matrix than anything Skywalker. More like a Marvel superhero than anything grounded in an ancient mysticism that acts subtly at moments of great need. What that does is immediately lower the stakes, because if anything is possible, and therefore probable, there is no threat of failure. And if this movie lacks anything essential it is threat.
That said, the reanimation of Emperor Palpatine was nicely creepy, at least in a visual and vocal sense. And the journey of the excellent Adam Driver as Ben Solo / Kylo Ren remained the most interesting and satisfying thing about the whole reboot. I found myself just wanting to focus on him more and more, and felt frustrated when, typically, his key progression moments were over too soon or given away too cheaply from a dramatic context.
I have mixed feelings also about the level of mirroring and call-backs to moments from previous films. Some really worked, but many fell flat. It began to feel like a greatest hits checklist, which, of course, was a criticism of JJ Abrams’ directing style in The Force Awakens, too. He has been so much more concerned with giving fans sugary little treats, as opposed to cooking up a satisfying meal that nourishes in it’s own right – indicative of a 21st century audience that often demands its pudding before it has finished its greens.
Look, I enjoy a nostalgia trip as much as the next uber-geek, but I do also like my fantasy sci-fi to be based on an idea of weight and gravitas. Eschew that aspect and the climax is going to fall a little flat… which, I think it did. Our empathy for Rey, and in fact all of the new gang, is simply not as strong as it should have been. Daisy Ridley does a decent job, and I don’t blame her at all – I have no problem with any of the supporting cast either, but what a shame too many of them almost fade away into mere scene dressing by the end.
Very telling then, that my favourite bit by far was a 15 minute giggling fit brought on by that one, already infamous detail, when tiny weirdo Babu Frik completely misses the mood of the room and screeches his “Hey Heeeeeey!” Only to pop up again later with an equally hilarious repeat. Probably the funniest moment in any Star Wars film, bar none. Worth the ticket price alone, and I am still having regular flashbacks that leave me in fits of laughter!
So, that’s it is it? Over and done with? Well, they certainly wrapped it up in a bow, coming full circle in fairly satisfying style. With just a cheeky hint that the roots of a continuation at some point are buried within shallow reach. No doubt, amateur writers everywhere have already had a pop at what happens next. The Force is balanced, the prophecy fulfilled, but it wouldn’t take much to tip the galaxy back into turmoil, as soon as Disney fancies another few billion in ticket sales.
Personally, I don’t want to be cynical about a franchise that has been a part of me since I was 3 years old, and been such a good friend. However, I am perfectly fine with having it remain as a source for backstories and origin tales. The main saga is over, so let’s leave it alone. Episodes IV – VI will always remain the best; they won’t go anywhere. So any shortcomings can be easily solved… just watch The Empire Strikes Back again, not worrying about anything else, but revelling in just how perfect it is, and how lucky we are that it is there for us.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Pet Sematary in Books
Jul 31, 2019
Realistic horror scenes (1 more)
Great writing
Overuse of some words (1 more)
Some contradictions
Louis Creed, the main character of Stephen King's 'Pet Sematary,' wants a good life for his family. He's starting his first term as a newly appointed doctor for the University of Maine. Louis' family moved from Chicago to Maine for this very job, which consists of his young daughter, Ellie, his wife, Rachel, his infant son, Gage, and Ellie's black cat, Church (which is short for Winston Churchill). This cat quickly becomes the topic of conversation when the Creeds' new neighbor, Jud Crandall, warns them about the road in front of their house: " 'I'd get him fixed, ' Crandall said, crushing his smoke between his thumb and forefinger. 'A fixed cat don't tend to wander as much. But if it's all the time crossing back and forth, its luck will run out, and it'll end up there with the Ryder kids' coon and little Timmy Dessler's cocker spaniel and Missus Bradleigh's parakeet. Not that the parakeet got run over in the road, you understand. It just went feet up one day.' "
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!
"The door slid open and Clarke knew it was time to die." What a way to start the book. Kass Morgan dives right into her storyline with an in-your-face opener. It took a bit of time before I, as the reader realized what this book was about. She began by setting up a number of characters, switching between perspectives, to quickly introduce you to the players. Those people who will have the biggest impact upon the storyline.
Each character is thrown into the mix, destined to be sent to Earth. The first in a long, long time. While not all make it, we are still treated with back stories and past relationships. Had the author not included those scenes, her characters would have been much more difficult to relate to. You come to briefly understand what the person goes through, exactly why he/she is so angry and hurt, and what they each did to become subjected to the fate of the 100. Personally, I would have preferred that greater attention had been given to character development rather than relationship development.
The Earth was unlivable for so long, and yet they send these 100 "children" as guinea pigs, rather than trained professionals. People who could colonize, build shelters, feed the colony, study the land and environment, or even tend to the ill. Instead, these youths are forced to come together with a common goal - survival.
One gets to a certain point in the novel and then realizes they don't entirely know what these different living situations/names mean. Of course, the Walden and Arcadian people seem to be of a lower class, economic, and social standing than the Phoenix. Walden also had an outbreak at one point that had to be quarantined. But beyond that? I'm not entirely sure what the distinctions are. Clearly the Phoenix people are "posh", with foreign accents, prone to extravagances and taking what they have for granted. But how did they come to be in that, dare I say, caste to begins with? Were people settled based upon their original locations on Earth? Or perhaps based upon the money/knowledge they could provide? Unfortunately, that aspect of the story is not very clearly explained. It seems that the author took more time to focus on the intricacies of the relationships than the world building.
Sometimes the author was redundant, choosing to repeat the same fears/desire over and over again. Yes, we understand that the medicine is missing. Was it flung from the ship before the crash or during? Can they survive without it? We don't know yet, but if we didn't realize the medicine was important the first time it was mentioned... We certainly realized it after the tenth.
This book has a very unique concept in that it combines the post-apocalyptic Hunger Games or Divergent-type Earth with space. While it may exist in other novels, I've not yet read something similar. Where it does seem to follow typical YA novels is the fact that it has a love triangle. Those seem like they are a requirement, as they are in most popular young adult novels. (HG, Divergent, TMI, Vampire Diaries, etc.)
There is a bit of mystery in the book as well. It seems that the reason one of the characters is arrested must be kept a secret, even from the reader. The author continuously has the girl think to herself, 'Why isn't he asking me about my confinement?', 'He's happy, this is for the best [that he doesn't know.]', and even has her love interest say "I heard a rumor about a girl on Phoenix who was arrested for..." Yes, there was a dramatic pause. And no, he does not finish his sentence. After the third or fourth time, the author finally reveals the girl's situation during a flashback.
Throughout the novel, the author develops the relationship between two main characters. Unfortunately, it's a bit jarring and sporadic. It quickly jumps from bitter hatred from the moment they step foot on Earth to reconciliation after one act, then back to hatred. Again, after one act. While relationships can be a roller coaster, this is a bit too authentic to the carnival ride.
The relationship is not perfect, especially when she has a second possible love interest. A guy who after only a short while, thinks of only her before he falls asleep. That girl must be something. The first time they really spend any time together, he decides that making out is the best course of action. Much to the dismay of her other love interest, though it does not dissuade him. Sound familiar?
It doesn't take long before he snaps at her and their brief... Whatever it was is over. Or is it?
They must be masochists, because it seems they're just gluttons for punishment and emotional, gut wrenching hurt... Or just those that don't learn from history. (Doomed to repeat it and all that.) Who would continuously subject themselves to that kind of torment? Move on and let yourself heal. It's not a post-apocalyptic world that only the two of you can repopulate... There are other individuals in camp with you. (Like the second guy you may or may not like, but that you certainly make out with in the woods.) But that's just my perspective.
While I found myself bemused and skeptical at times about certain aspects of the book, none of those times corresponded to the purposefully exaggerated environment that they must adapt to on Earth. Rather it is the progression of relationships, situations characters find themselves in, and utterly disastrous karmic intervention. Seriously, they must have really messed with the world for it to so perfectly separate two lovers as it does.
I suspected there would be a particular plot twist and unsurprisingly it came to fruition approximately 98% of the way through the book. I'm intrigued to see where the author takes it and how it will develop in the sequel - The 100: Day
21 (which is next on my review list!)
I find myself enjoying the read, dispute the obvious flaws one notices whilst reading it. If you take it as an easy, enjoyable read - then that is what you will come away with. If you expect it to be a fantastic piece that delves into the human psyche to truly draw you into a character's life and relationships - then you will be quite disappointed. Overall, I would recommend this novel to those who enjoy dystopian, teen romance series.
Each character is thrown into the mix, destined to be sent to Earth. The first in a long, long time. While not all make it, we are still treated with back stories and past relationships. Had the author not included those scenes, her characters would have been much more difficult to relate to. You come to briefly understand what the person goes through, exactly why he/she is so angry and hurt, and what they each did to become subjected to the fate of the 100. Personally, I would have preferred that greater attention had been given to character development rather than relationship development.
The Earth was unlivable for so long, and yet they send these 100 "children" as guinea pigs, rather than trained professionals. People who could colonize, build shelters, feed the colony, study the land and environment, or even tend to the ill. Instead, these youths are forced to come together with a common goal - survival.
One gets to a certain point in the novel and then realizes they don't entirely know what these different living situations/names mean. Of course, the Walden and Arcadian people seem to be of a lower class, economic, and social standing than the Phoenix. Walden also had an outbreak at one point that had to be quarantined. But beyond that? I'm not entirely sure what the distinctions are. Clearly the Phoenix people are "posh", with foreign accents, prone to extravagances and taking what they have for granted. But how did they come to be in that, dare I say, caste to begins with? Were people settled based upon their original locations on Earth? Or perhaps based upon the money/knowledge they could provide? Unfortunately, that aspect of the story is not very clearly explained. It seems that the author took more time to focus on the intricacies of the relationships than the world building.
Sometimes the author was redundant, choosing to repeat the same fears/desire over and over again. Yes, we understand that the medicine is missing. Was it flung from the ship before the crash or during? Can they survive without it? We don't know yet, but if we didn't realize the medicine was important the first time it was mentioned... We certainly realized it after the tenth.
This book has a very unique concept in that it combines the post-apocalyptic Hunger Games or Divergent-type Earth with space. While it may exist in other novels, I've not yet read something similar. Where it does seem to follow typical YA novels is the fact that it has a love triangle. Those seem like they are a requirement, as they are in most popular young adult novels. (HG, Divergent, TMI, Vampire Diaries, etc.)
There is a bit of mystery in the book as well. It seems that the reason one of the characters is arrested must be kept a secret, even from the reader. The author continuously has the girl think to herself, 'Why isn't he asking me about my confinement?', 'He's happy, this is for the best [that he doesn't know.]', and even has her love interest say "I heard a rumor about a girl on Phoenix who was arrested for..." Yes, there was a dramatic pause. And no, he does not finish his sentence. After the third or fourth time, the author finally reveals the girl's situation during a flashback.
Throughout the novel, the author develops the relationship between two main characters. Unfortunately, it's a bit jarring and sporadic. It quickly jumps from bitter hatred from the moment they step foot on Earth to reconciliation after one act, then back to hatred. Again, after one act. While relationships can be a roller coaster, this is a bit too authentic to the carnival ride.
The relationship is not perfect, especially when she has a second possible love interest. A guy who after only a short while, thinks of only her before he falls asleep. That girl must be something. The first time they really spend any time together, he decides that making out is the best course of action. Much to the dismay of her other love interest, though it does not dissuade him. Sound familiar?
It doesn't take long before he snaps at her and their brief... Whatever it was is over. Or is it?
They must be masochists, because it seems they're just gluttons for punishment and emotional, gut wrenching hurt... Or just those that don't learn from history. (Doomed to repeat it and all that.) Who would continuously subject themselves to that kind of torment? Move on and let yourself heal. It's not a post-apocalyptic world that only the two of you can repopulate... There are other individuals in camp with you. (Like the second guy you may or may not like, but that you certainly make out with in the woods.) But that's just my perspective.
While I found myself bemused and skeptical at times about certain aspects of the book, none of those times corresponded to the purposefully exaggerated environment that they must adapt to on Earth. Rather it is the progression of relationships, situations characters find themselves in, and utterly disastrous karmic intervention. Seriously, they must have really messed with the world for it to so perfectly separate two lovers as it does.
I suspected there would be a particular plot twist and unsurprisingly it came to fruition approximately 98% of the way through the book. I'm intrigued to see where the author takes it and how it will develop in the sequel - The 100: Day
21 (which is next on my review list!)
I find myself enjoying the read, dispute the obvious flaws one notices whilst reading it. If you take it as an easy, enjoyable read - then that is what you will come away with. If you expect it to be a fantastic piece that delves into the human psyche to truly draw you into a character's life and relationships - then you will be quite disappointed. Overall, I would recommend this novel to those who enjoy dystopian, teen romance series.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Dark Knight picks up not too long after Batman Begins left off. The way the citizens of Gotham look at Batman is still pretty divided. Some see him as a vigilante in a mask who takes the law into his own hands and others see him as a caped crusader who helps keep scum off the streets. A hero to some and a villain to others. Harvey Dent, the man running for DA, enters the picture and could be the face Gotham is looking for to be its new hero. A man who's not only capable of getting rid of the filth on the streets of Gotham in a more efficient manner, but could be the reason Batman hangs up his cape for good. It seems as though Gotham has found itself with a new criminal psychopath though that's keeping Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Gotham PD busy these days. The Joker is, without a doubt, Batman's most dangerous adversary. A madman whose only desire is to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Bruce Wayne goes beyond his limits as Batman to try and take him down and all The Joker wants is for Gotham to be filled with pure chaos. Can Batman bring The Joker to justice? Will Harvey Dent become Gotham's new white knight? How does Rachel Dawes fit into the picture?
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is your typical jarhead from the military other than the fact that he doesn't have the use of his legs, but him being in a wheelchair doesn't seem to slow him down at all. Jake is the type of soldier to shoot first and ask questions later while his twin brother was more of the scientific type, but Jake's life takes an unexpected turn when his brother is killed. Jake is asked to step into his brother's shoes, so to speak, and take his spot in the Avatar project. The project requires him to travel to Pandora, a planet that takes nearly six years to get to, and to try to learn the ways of the natives there, the Na'vi.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Park (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, this is going to be awash with spoilers because I was absolutely amazed by the reaction I had to it. It's not unheard of for movies to turn out differently to how the trailer portrays them but in this case it felt like a rather low blow. I think there should have been some clues to what lay ahead without having to read reviews.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Da 5 Bloods: Spike Lee Asks Us "What's Going On?"
Spike Lee could not have possibly known that current events and major progresses made in the Black Lives Matter movement would more than likely affect the way audiences perceive Da 5 Bloods, but it’s these developments that, for all of the film’s flaws, imbue it with a sense of urgency befitting of Lee’s filmmaking talents and the beliefs that his filmography has been expounding for decades. In the process of expressing such powerful statements, Lee, in turn, provides a long-overdue voice for the African American experience in the Vietnam War, a conflict that has been portrayed in popular film for about as long as it has been over, and yet strangely, has not been properly balanced in its representation of those who made up the largest percentage of those who served in it.
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
