Search
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Girl On The Third Floor (2019) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Girl on the third floor is a slow paced film about a man, Don Koch who is renovating a rundown house. Of course there is something strange going on.
The film has Amityville vibes, with leaking plug sockets and bleeding walls but also vibes with Fatal Attraction, it's true that there are strange things about the house but it doesn't necessarily mean it's haunted, right, and, this way the film does leave you wondering what is happening. At least for a short while.
Like a lot of haunted house movies, Girl on the third floor, starts slow, there are weird stains and sounds, the dog barks at nothing and marbles roll around. Occasionally you can catch a glimpse of something in a mirror or something moves in the back ground but these are all well used tropes and the film plays on a lot of familiar tropes. This doesn't mean that it is a bad film but I found myself trying to work out where certain characters fitted in.
One thing 'Girl on the third floor' does do well is only feed you the information you need, giving you a chance to work out what is happening before it puts most of the peace's together because there is one character I'm not sure about and one thing about the ending that I'm... Well I'm not going to spoil that but, if they did what I think they did then it's been done better.
I did see reviews saying that 'Girl on the third floor' was one of the films that is so disturbing that you watch it to the end but I didn't find that true. True it is atmospheric and there are a couple of scenes that are a bit gross and a couple of the themes push things a bit but they are only briefly mentioned or cut away from. Maybe I've just seen too many horrors but it was well watchable, I think something like 'Hereditary' was much more disturbing.
Girl on the third floor is a good film but I found that it had all been done before, nether the less it is probably above average.
The film has Amityville vibes, with leaking plug sockets and bleeding walls but also vibes with Fatal Attraction, it's true that there are strange things about the house but it doesn't necessarily mean it's haunted, right, and, this way the film does leave you wondering what is happening. At least for a short while.
Like a lot of haunted house movies, Girl on the third floor, starts slow, there are weird stains and sounds, the dog barks at nothing and marbles roll around. Occasionally you can catch a glimpse of something in a mirror or something moves in the back ground but these are all well used tropes and the film plays on a lot of familiar tropes. This doesn't mean that it is a bad film but I found myself trying to work out where certain characters fitted in.
One thing 'Girl on the third floor' does do well is only feed you the information you need, giving you a chance to work out what is happening before it puts most of the peace's together because there is one character I'm not sure about and one thing about the ending that I'm... Well I'm not going to spoil that but, if they did what I think they did then it's been done better.
I did see reviews saying that 'Girl on the third floor' was one of the films that is so disturbing that you watch it to the end but I didn't find that true. True it is atmospheric and there are a couple of scenes that are a bit gross and a couple of the themes push things a bit but they are only briefly mentioned or cut away from. Maybe I've just seen too many horrors but it was well watchable, I think something like 'Hereditary' was much more disturbing.
Girl on the third floor is a good film but I found that it had all been done before, nether the less it is probably above average.
Jacqueline Stewart recommended Fieldwork Footage (1928) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Christmas Horror Story (2015) in Movies
Dec 24, 2020
As far as anthology horrors go, A Christmas Horror Story is so-so. It tells four seperate tales, all connected to each other in someway, not to dissimilar to Trick R' Treat in terms of structure.
They vary in quality of course. One of them is a ghost story, as three students go about exploring the abandoned crime scene of two people murdered in ritual sacrifice on Christmas the year before. This one was plain boring. It was creepy in places, and is presented occasionally in a found footage style. The characters here are pretty unlikable, and doesn't really offer much to the overall film bar a couple of predictable jump scares.
Another revolves around a couple who's child goes missing whilst chopping down a Christmas tree for their home. They find the child, but eventually find out that he is in fact a shapeshifting troll. Chaos ensues. This one was ok, some good performances by Adrian Holmes and Olunike Adeliyi certainly help it carry more gravitas.
A third story revolves around Krampus preying on a family trying to make amends with some long lost relatives. Again, this one was ok. It's quite visually pleasing in its setting, but it's a pretty standard short revolving around a story we've already heard a hundred times. Krampus looks good enough considering it's a dude in make up.
And the the fourth story is easily the best of the bunch. It revolves around Santa fending off his elves in Christmas Eve when they succumb to a zombie style virus. Santa stomping around decapitating zombie elves by the bucket load is exactly what I signed up for. It also has the films best twist, which is pretty damn bleak, and features a Santa vs Krampus showdown. The film's worth watching for this segment alone!
Overall, A Christmas Horror Story is entertaining enough to justify a Yuletide watch. It has half decent production values (if you ignore the occasional piss poor CGI), some passable gore, and all the stories are inter cut by mother fucking William Shatner of all people, who actually seems to be having a good time here. Don't go in expecting a masterpiece and I'm sure you'll find something to enjoy.
They vary in quality of course. One of them is a ghost story, as three students go about exploring the abandoned crime scene of two people murdered in ritual sacrifice on Christmas the year before. This one was plain boring. It was creepy in places, and is presented occasionally in a found footage style. The characters here are pretty unlikable, and doesn't really offer much to the overall film bar a couple of predictable jump scares.
Another revolves around a couple who's child goes missing whilst chopping down a Christmas tree for their home. They find the child, but eventually find out that he is in fact a shapeshifting troll. Chaos ensues. This one was ok, some good performances by Adrian Holmes and Olunike Adeliyi certainly help it carry more gravitas.
A third story revolves around Krampus preying on a family trying to make amends with some long lost relatives. Again, this one was ok. It's quite visually pleasing in its setting, but it's a pretty standard short revolving around a story we've already heard a hundred times. Krampus looks good enough considering it's a dude in make up.
And the the fourth story is easily the best of the bunch. It revolves around Santa fending off his elves in Christmas Eve when they succumb to a zombie style virus. Santa stomping around decapitating zombie elves by the bucket load is exactly what I signed up for. It also has the films best twist, which is pretty damn bleak, and features a Santa vs Krampus showdown. The film's worth watching for this segment alone!
Overall, A Christmas Horror Story is entertaining enough to justify a Yuletide watch. It has half decent production values (if you ignore the occasional piss poor CGI), some passable gore, and all the stories are inter cut by mother fucking William Shatner of all people, who actually seems to be having a good time here. Don't go in expecting a masterpiece and I'm sure you'll find something to enjoy.
authentic (2 more)
easy-to-read
funny
Fun, easy-to-read memoir
Anna Faris' memoir is based mainly on the premise of her podcast, also entitled Unqualified, in which she doles out advice to strangers whom she calls on her show. The idea is that Anna is, in fact, "unqualified" to give advice, but she'll do so anyway based on her life experiences. If you actually listen to her podcast, though, you quickly learn that she's pretty good at giving advice, and that she's also a funny and enjoyable person. The book expands on this, allowing Anna to answer some of the questions posed on her podcast (e.g., Dealbreakers), talk about her childhood and experience breaking in acting, and, yes, of course, her various relationships.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Oh...hell, no!
HELLBOY?!? HELL NO!
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Horror films have been in a steady decline for the past few years with countless remakes and sequels to some of the most loved horror franchises. After an 8 year hiatus, Wes Craven resurrects the seemingly dead Scream series with some fantastic results. Scream 4 does for horror what the original did way back in 1996; it carves out a new direction for what has been a lifeless genre.
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.