Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Right off the bat, this latest remake of the classic H.G. Wells story shows us just how suspenseful it can be. It’s the middle of the night and a wide-awake Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) quietly climbs out of bed so as not to disturb her sleeping partner Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). It quickly becomes apparent that she has been waiting and planning for this moment to leave him for some time now, and she is absolutely terrified of waking him up. She creeps through their spacious modern glass home, gathering some of her belongings and occasionally checking a mobile feed of the CCTV camera that she has re-positioned in order to see Adrian asleep in bed. Already the tension is unbearable, and we’re only a few minutes into the movie!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
All the fun of the circus
Ah, the movie musical. Once the choice of matinee viewings and Saturday nights in front of the TV, they’ve evolved over the last decade into something completely mainstream. From the ridiculously good remake of Hairspray in 2007, to the vibrant Mamma Mia, which gets its very own sequel Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again this year, musicals have become the ultimate in escapism.
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ambulance (2022) in Movies
Apr 18, 2022
Repetitive drone camera work (2 more)
Cringey humor and dialogue
An outdated and juvenile screenplay
Ambulance Review: Action At Its Dumbest And Gaudiest
Ambulance is a remake of a 2005 Danish film of the same name. Michael Bay’s version of the film follows former Marine Will Sharp (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as he struggles to find a job and support his family; his wife requires an experimental surgery that their health insurance won’t pay for.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Operation Avalanche (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
You’ve heard me say it before. I’ll say it again. Before this year is out, I’ll say it in perhaps another article. The ‘found footage genre’ of movies was played out in perhaps its most notable appearance as well as its debut in the original ‘Blair Witch Project’. Now they’re gearing-up for another round of ‘beating a dead horse’ with a remake would you believe? However, I’m not here writing this article to go on and on and plague your eyes with an entire article complaining about the issue. No. Why you ask? For the unique reason which is since I’ve been writing reviews for movies, ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ has given me the good fortune to screen movies incorporating said genre that present ORIGINAL ideas. Today’s film for your consideration does so in the form of a unique period piece incorporating one of the most notorious conspiracy theories in the world with a pivotal moment in history. Not just in American history but global history.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Brick Mansions (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
3 weeks ago, I had never heard of this movie. I happened upon the commercial as I was watching TV
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.